Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL. [Lords]

(By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

EC (Internal Market)

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding preparations for the realisation of the Economic Community internal market in 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Since we announced our awareness campaign we have received an encouragingly large number of representations from all sectors of British business. All have warmly welcomed the high priority that the Government are giving to completing the single market in Europe and the steps that we are taking to make British business aware of the challenge.

Sir Russell Johnston: Has the Minister not read the comments made by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Banham, to the effect that he thinks that the Government are not taking the negotiations on standards seriously and are not spending enough resources or time on the problem? Surely this requires a rather wider answer than the Minister has given today, or was given to me by the Minister of State on 2 March, when I was told that the interests of the CBI were not necessarily those of the British nation. It is in our interest to be able to respond properly to the new training environment in 1992.

Mr. Maude: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about standards, we hold the chair of no less than a quarter of all the standards committees in Brussels. It is important that we should take an active role in setting European standards, and we do that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a very high priority for us, and we are doing a great deal more now than we have done in the past.

Mr. Onslow: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the importance of our preparing people and making them aware of what is involved between now and 1992 and the steps that we must take to take

advantage of that, but does he agree that it is important that the EC should not distract us in any way by such time-wasting foolishness as trying to introduce a common European car number plate?

Mr. Maude: I note what my right hon. Friend has said. In asserting progress towards 1992, we must decide on priorities, and the kind of thing to which my right hon. Friend has referred is plainly not a high priority.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not permit VAT on newspapers and books?

Mr. Maude: That is plainly not a matter for me to comment on here and now. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due time. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about our right to impose our own VAT rates on our own products.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is good news that the awareness campaign is going well? Is he aware of the fantastic efforts being made by all the chambers of commerce and business organisations in other European countries to get their businesses off the ground and their noses in ahead of us? Does he believe that smaller businesses in this country realise the immense opportunities that will be available for them as well?

Mr. Maude: No, we do not believe that smaller businesses are fully aware of the opportunities, and that is why we are launching a major awareness campaign. That campaign has not actually started yet, but, because the issue is being discussed far more widely than before, awareness is steadily growing. The opportunities available to competitive British businesses for opening up Europe to the free exchange of goods and services are enormous. However, there is a threat for uncompetitive businesses because opportunities for competitive British businesses are also open to competitive businesses elsewhere.

Information (Sale and Access)

Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to regulate the sale of or access to information held on magnetic tape by the telecommunications industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I have no plans to do so. The Director General of Telecommunications would consider representations on this issue in the light of his general duty to consider these where they relate to telecommunications services or apparatus.

Mr. Darling: Does the Minister realise that those magnetic tapes hold far more information than is available on telephone directories and that British Telecom in particular holds a substantial body of information on each and every one of us? My information is that that may be against the guidelines on the data protection principles. Does he realise that unless he acts now we may face a national scandal in two years' time if fanatics or purveyors of junk mail manage to get hold of that information?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman's question raises a number of issues, some of which are a matter for the


Director General of Oftel. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, because he and I have pursued the matter with the Director General, that he can act vigorously and is a fast-moving regulator.
The other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question relates to data protection. Clear guidelines and requirements are placed on the holders of data to preserve the interests of data subjects. I shall examine very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in the first instance I feel that I should refer it to the Data Protection Registrar to see that nothing untoward is at risk.

Mr. Stott: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has contacted the Director General of Oftel, who, I understand, feels that he has no power in this regard.
This is a serious matter. British Telecom is not merely selling a telephone directory. What is contained on the magnetic tapes could be used for credit reference agencies, debt collecting and tracing agencies and other agencies wishing to examine the socio-economic groupings of certain individuals. There is much more on the tapes than is contained in the telephone directory, and, if it got into the wrong hands, it could cause distress and concern to many people. If, having looked at the matter, the Minister feels that the Director General can do nothing about the problem, will he consider bringing in legislation to protect these people?

Mr. Butcher: The Government discharged a major part of their duties during the passage of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Standing Committee, will remember the long debates on whether we should have a statutory body, which might be rigid and might constantly require updating through legislation, or a fast-moving freer body with appropriate powers, like the Director General of Oftel.
When matters have arisen that are legitimately for him, he has moved fast. He has not said that he has no remit to intervene. My understanding of his communication to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is that he accepts that two or three live issues have been raised which deserve consideration. However, I shall not second guess today precisely which body may take action to deal with the complaints that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Company Liquidations

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many company liquidations there were in Derbyshire in the years 1983 to date.

Mr. Maude: Company liquidations are not analysed by county, but Derbyshire is part of the area administered by the Official Receiver's office in Leicester, which processed an estimated 415 compulsory liquidations in the years 1983 to 1987. During this period compulsory company insolvencies fell by 27 per cent. No regional analysis is available of creditors' voluntary liquidations.

Mr. Oppenheim: Has there not been a substantial net increase in business activity in the area over the past five years? Has not that increase, which is very welcome, also gone hand in hand with a fall in unemployment, and has that not occurred despite the lack of regional assistance in the county of Derbyshire and the fact that many jobs have

been lost in the coal industry, not just over the past few years but over the past 20 or 30 years? What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw from those facts?

Mr. Maude: I suspect that I draw the same conclusion as my hon. Friend—that industry in Derbyshire is very buoyant—and the fall in unemployment to which he refers is mirrored throughout the country. It is worth pointing out that between 1983 and the last year for which figures are available the number of new company registrations in Derbyshire rose by no less than 81 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that, in Derbyshire, company liquidations from 1983 until the year of the election—when some special measures were introduced by the Government for electoral reasons—were at an all-time record, along with company bankruptcies; that half the north Derbyshire coalfield has been closed; and that, if the Government remain in office, there will be not 4 million people unemployed, as was the case a couple of years ago, but top side of 5 million? Derbyshire will suffer, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will be part and parcel of it.

Mr. Maude: The short answer to that is no, Sir.

Telecommunications Supervision

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Director General of Oftel on the implications for the system of telecommunications supervision of British Telecom's decision to ban its Talkabout telephone service.

Mr. Butcher: Since British Telecom's decision to suspend Talkabout no further discussions have taken place, although the Director General of Telecommunications has kept my hon. and noble Friend in touch with developments. The matters involved are for the Director General who has demonstrated that he can and does act effectively.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that that shows the effect that Oftel can have? The decision temporarily to ban Talkabout is welcome, and one hopes that Talkabout will never be reproduced.

Mr. Butcher: It has demonstrated just that. A growing number of people now recognise the value of Oftel and the conspicuous and important role played by its current director general, who I think now has the respect of most sections of the telecommunications community, including Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Terry Lewis.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis: It is clear that my presence has been noted, Mr. Speaker.
May I be one of the first to add my support to the Director General of Oftel, particularly for his role in banning Talkabout? However, I warn the Minister against complacency. I do that specifically because of the chat lines which exist over the telephone. Such lines are still in operation today under licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. The Director General of Oftel has referred those lines in the same way as he referred British Telecom's Talkabout. I expect the Minister and the DTI to exert all the influence possible in this matter in order to ban those private chat lines as well.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman's presence on this whole issue has been significant and I congratulate him on the way in which he has pursued his campaign.
The question is whether the chat line services that are not sponsored by BT should equally be held up to examination. This is an important issue. It is open to the Director General, if he so wishes, to seek modifications to the licences of the public telecommunications operators, including BT, or—this goes some way towards meeting the point of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—he can seek changes to the class licences under which many of those services are provided.

Mr. Butler: When my hon. Friend next meets the Director General of Oftel will he discuss with him Sunday Sport magazine, which portrays itself as Britain's fastest growing family newspaper? It is full of hundreds of advertisements for telephone lines giving pornographic messages, which bring discredit on the telephone service.

Mr. Butcher: Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 we have already made it a criminal offence to send messages which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing. I assume that under that section and under other aspects of the law my hon. Friend's point could be examined. I take seriously what has been said and I will see that my hon. Friend's message finds the appropriate home.

Rover Group

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to meet the chief executive of Rover Group to discuss the company's future.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): At the moment I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 1 March.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister tell the House what assurances the Government are seeking on future model developments in the British Aerospace talks? I am referring particularly to the update of the Rover 800 by 1992, the future of the R9, the Montego replacement, and other models. What would the Government do to make such assurances stick? For example, would they deploy their golden share in British Aerospace to safeguard the long-term position of vehicle production in the interests of balance of payments and employment in the industry?

Mr. Clarke: Future model development is a matter for the management of the company. It is a commercial rather than a political decision. British Aerospace has told us that it is interested in continuing the development of the Rover Group, and obviously it is seeking to acquire it as a going concern. If the negotiations result in a merger between the two companies, the new management will have to address itself to the question of model development in order to protect its role in the market in future. We would not use the British Aerospace golden share in any way, because it would not apply to new acquisitions. In the course of the negotiations we are considering what view, if any, we will take about the Rover shares when we sell them.

Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in discussions with the chairman of the Rover Group, ensure that any conditions relating to the deal with British Aerospace for the period prior to any final agreement will

not exclude any offer that may be superior in terms of security to the work force or return to the taxpayer and that, in the period after such an agreement, they will not exclude future participation or joint venture by other motor companies?

Mr. Clarke: As I explained to my hon. Friend when I made my statement, we agreed that at present the negotiations between British Aerospace and the Rover Group should proceed on an exclusive basis. We shall have to await the outcome of those negotiations, but, if they were to be successful, and if we were considering a final offer, we would have to consider what other offers have been forthcoming from other interested companies.

Mr. Eastham: Having read about all the buying and selling that is going on between the Rover Group and British Aerospace, I should like to underline to the Minister the fact that the livelihoods and jobs of thousands of workers are involved. Does the Minister accept that there should be full consultation with the trade unions, and will he bear in mind the livelihoods of those thousands of workers, irrespective of who owns the undertaking?

Mr. Clarke: There is no pie in the sky involved. These are all serious negotiations. The hon. Gentleman is right that the negotiations concern important businesses and that the well-being of thousands of people depends on British Aerospace and the Rover Group continuing to be a commercial success. We believe that the Rover Group will be best placed in the private sector. The present negotiations are worth encouraging and we are awaiting the outcome of them. In the end, we shall make our decision about the holding in the Rover Group based on our best judgment of the interests of the taxpayer, the company and the work force.

Mr. Page: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chief executive of the Rover Group, will he discuss the amount of capital that is needed to update the Land Rover and Range Rover line, the van lines and the various new model developments? Will those costs be reflected in the price that is charged for the Rover Group to whoever may be buying it?

Mr. Clarke: Anybody contemplating purchasing a company of this size must address himself to exactly the kind of issues to which my hon. Friend refers. In deciding on the final price, and when we judge any offer that may be made, we must take an overall view of the value of the company to the taxpayer and the balance sheet that the new company will require. We shall bear in mind all the relevant considerations, including the ones that my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the DTI's attitude to the disposal of the Bathgate site?

Mr. Clarke: My understanding is that there is a prospect of development on the Bathgate site, and I trust that there will be some new development on that derelict site. It is now a matter for planning law in Scotland; it is not the responsibility of myself or of my hon. Friends at the DTI.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not important that the Government should now stand completely aside until negotiations between the two companies are concluded? Should not both companies be seeking to convince City investment institutions of the merits of their case, without the Government being involved?

Mr. Clarke: At present, the two companies are negotiating. Obviously, as the owner of 99·8 per cent. of the shares, we shall be closely involved. If the negotiations are successful a bid will be forthcoming for our shares, which we shall judge.
There is only one other way in which we are involved. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is in Japan, or is about to land there, and no doubt he will repeat what we have been saying about our wish for Honda to continue to be involved in co-operation with the Rover Group, which has been welcomed by Honda and the Rover Group so far.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the Minister has thought about the Rover Group and its future in any sense other than how quickly he can wash his hands of it, and if he has thought about British Aerospace—the proposed partner in this illogical and silly union—will he say what effect the rising pound, which is now up 14 per cent. in real terms compared with the end of 1986, will have on the business of both those groups? Does he agree with the Prime Minister and The Sun newspaper that the rising pound is good for Britain? Is it good for Britain's manufacturing industry?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's only interest is to try to ensure that the Rover Group remains nationalised for as long as possible, or whether he is contemplating the renationalisation of British Aerospace. Such matters are best determined by making the best judgment of the commercial future of the companies in the private sector, and that benefits the work force as well. The rising pound certainly damages some industries and helps others, but the rising pound is a sign of the strength of the British economy. More stability in exchange rates is desirable, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously welcomes the extent to which a strong pound keeps down inflationary pressures in Britain.

Link Programme Collaboration

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the Government expect to spend on Link collaborations over the next five years.

Mr. Butcher: The Government expect to contribute about £210 million to Link over the next five years, provided industry matches Government funding.

Mr. Jones: Do not both partners benefit from such arrangements — the researchers, who see their projects come to fruition, and industry, which benefits from the research of universities and colleges? If that is the case, why are some universities and colleges not taking advantage of such opportunities, or not taking advantage of them in such a big way? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to encourage them?

Mr. Butcher: We should like to see far more use of the research base currently inside our higher education institutions. If one compares our experience with that of the United States, one finds that we have an under-utilised national asset. If the Link programme can help to build more bridges between industrial and commercial research-based companies and the higher education sector, we would welcome it. To a certain extent the programmes are demand-led and on their merits. Five have come forward

which are worthy of support. If some universities are not tuned into this yet, it is their own fault. The resource is there. It is demand-led and it is up to them to bid for it.

Dr. Bray: Does this not represent a restriction on the way that already committed money is to be spent? It is in no sense an addition to research and development spending in Britain. Will the Minister acknowledge that a large number of industrial research directors are already warning that the attrition of the science base is threatening the viability of Britain as a base for applied industrial research? Finally, does he agree that the real need is for a proper incentive to industry to increase its support for research and development?

Mr. Butcher: The DTI's role is to encourage partnerships between the public and the private sector and to see that the critical mass of research is enhanced and applied with relevance to the market at large. The hon. Gentleman has been an observer, commentator and practitioner in this area for a long time and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that our budget for the totality of research, development and innovation effort is now running at about £500 million. That represents a major shift over the past five or six years, and we are beginning to see the benefit of it. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman about the industrial research directors' point. As he knows, there has been a complex build-up to this in terms of how it will apply. We are now through that and some of the sources of confusion and alleged over-complexity may now have been eliminated.

Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the investment of private industry in projects such as Link is a vital ingredient to their success? Is it not the case that unless one ensures that, for example, pharmaceutical companies, such as those involved in the eukaryotic project, find that research is encouraged by the repeal of the full licences of right, they may feel that it is not in their interests to proceed with such research?

Mr. Butcher: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in bringing the licence of right issue into this question. As he knows, we shall be addressing this matter at great length in Committee on the Bill that will come before the House after Easter. There is a eukaryotic genetic engineering programme within the five programmes that have been approved, and I hope that the pharmaceutical industry in particular will derive great benefit from that.

Inner Cities

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that the inner cities are given priority in departmental decentralisation plans.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, Sir. The Government's policy is that Civil Service work should be located where there is best value for money and best service to the public. However, when such locations are in areas which are the focus of the Government's urban and regional policies, they will be considered particularly seriously.

Mr. MacKay: While it is widely recognised that civil servants will do everything possible to resist moving out of cushy London, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the decentralisation plans will move forward apace? As he and his right hon. and noble Friend,


the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are making it clear that the private sector must play a major part in this rejuvenation, surely we must also play our part by moving as much as possible of the Department to inner cities in the regions?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that the reluctance of civil servants is quite as bad as my hon. Friend says it is. One way or another, about 5,500 jobs have been transferred out of London since the Government came to power in 1979. The DTI recently announced the transfer of most of the Patent Office to Newport and part of the insolvency service to Birmingham. I am carrying out a review to look for further candidates for cost saving, while maintaining the quality of service in my Department.

Mr. Madden: May we assume from the Minister's reply that Bradford will be carefully considered for the relocation of any Government Departments? Can the Minister say in specific terms what benefits will flow to Bradford from the city action team being located in Leeds?

Mr. Clarke: As I said in my previous answer, whenever we look for alternative locations for Government offices we pay particular attention to places that are the target of the Government's urban and regional policies. I think that great benefits will flow to Bradford from the work of the city action team. Its headquarters are in neighbouring Leeds, but its activities are particularly directed to the urban problems of Leeds and Bradford. It has all the resources and competence to tackle the problems of both.

Mr. Steen: The Government will be successful with their macro-economic policy of inner-city regeneration, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the neighbourhood regeneration, on which he has been concentrating? Surely the success of the strategy lies in encouraging local people to be involved in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods and streets.

Mr. Clarke: Civil servants have been posted to task force offices in 16 deprived neighbourhoods up and down the country. That approach has been particularly successful, not least because it has enabled those civil servants to get into close contact with local residents, and because it has targeted the Government's national programmes and additional money on projects where they are most needed in those districts.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am intrigued by the decentralised free breakfasts that the Minister will be offering as part of his inner-city initiative. How many breakfasts will there be, which Ministers will be involved, and how much will the free breakfasts cost the taxpayer? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking around for a menu, in view of the damage that the Government's policies have done to the inner cities, may I suggest thin gruel, hard cheese, and poached bullshit?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very unparliamentary word. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw it and use another?

Mr. Banks: Tell us the menu, then.

Mr. Clarke: Breakfast is my least favourite meal; normally I do not eat it. The only reason why we are having these meetings at breakfast time is that that is the one time when all the leading citizens of a city tend to have their diaries clear, until they receive our invitation. We

found that with "Action For Jobs" presentations—one gets a much better attendance if one turns up at breakfast time.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the menu is quite immaterial and entirely undistinguished on these occasions. What matters is the serious discussion that takes place, which I hope will lead in this case to follow-up action after the breakfasts bringing together leading industrial citizens of each city to help to steer the private sector contribution towards the Government's and the country's efforts.

Business Regulation

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to lift the burden of regulation on business.

Mr. Maude: Active efforts to reduce the burden of regulation on business continue in all areas of the Government's work. A White Paper on deregulation in the summer will give further details of our strategy and programme of action.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their deregulation policies to date. There is a great deal more to be done, and we look forward to the White Paper. However, will my hon. Friend carefully examine the possibility of abolishing the statutory audit for small businesses?

Mr. Maude: We are certainly looking at that matter. A good deal of concern has been expressed to the effect that the statutory audit has placed an excessive burden on small businesses. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the deregulatory programme. It is important. None of it is dramatic in itself, but the cumulative effect of lifting small burdens from business is dramatic.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will in no way attempt to diminish standards of health and safety at work? As he knows, each year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. It would be a savage attack on workers if there were any attempt in any businesses to lower the standard of health and safety at work.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the curious situation whereby business organisations claim to want the Government off their backs, but invite retired civil servants on to their boards?

Mr. Maude: The latter phenomenon demonstrates that public servants have a great deal to offer industry. One of the things that we are trying to develop is a greater flow of personnel to and from the public sector. It would be helpful for business if more people from the private sector were to be seconded into the public sector, and vice versa. The public and private sectors have a great deal to learn from each other.
We continue to attach high priority to health and safety at work. There are advances to be made by simplifying the burden of regulations so that users find it easier to comply with them.

Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend take encouragment from the deregulation programme so far? Does he accept that real obstacles and burdens make it difficult for firms to expand and grow, and that it is important to cut red tape? Will he consider placing before Parliament an annual


report on progress made in all Government Departments, so that Parliament can see how far the deregulation programme has gone?

Mr. Maude: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The White Paper that we propose to publish in the summer will effectively amount to that. Since the deregulation initiative started three or so years ago we have published two formal White Papers and a further paper. These papers outlined the progress that has been made right across the board. We shall continue to do that.

Shipbuilding

Ms. Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress made in discussions of the European Commission's proposals entitled "Shipbuilding—Industrial, Social and Regional Aspects".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Our discussions in the relevant European Council of Ministers on regional measures within the programme known as RENAVAL are well advanced. I have stressed to the Council how important I believe it to be that we should make rapid progress. The Commission's proposals on other aspects of its programme have yet to come to Council. The Commission seeks to assure me that work within the Commission is well in hand.

Ms. Quin: Although help to enable new businesses to go to shipbuilding areas is to be welcomed, will the Minister assure us that it will in no way be a sop to allow a further rundown in British shipbuilding? May we be assured that the money will not be a substitute for the financial support that the industry needs if it is to survive and play an essential role in Britain's industrial future?

Mr. Clarke: I am anxious to get support from the Community for shipbuilding areas as quickly as possible. Obviously, we need the encouragement of other businesses in such areas. Looking back, no one can doubt the extent of the Government's financial commitment to British Shipbuilders. At the moment, its external financing limit is £180 million, which is about £20,000 for each employee working in the yards. As I told the House when I announced that figure last year, it is a heavy figure, and the outlook for British Shipbuilders is still difficult.

Sir John Farr: Will the discussions include the inducements offered by many European companies to attract custom and orders away from British shipbuilding and repair yards?

Mr. Clarke: We have agreed on a European sixth directive, which is meant to impose limits on the extent to which any Government within the European Community can give inducements to win orders. It is the British Government's view that the sixth directive should be adhered to, to stop pointless and wasteful competition, with taxpayers in each country pouring money into loss-making orders.

Mr. Milian: Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the report that appeared in The Guardian a few days ago to the effect that the Government are contemplating removing all help to British shipbuilding? That would mean reneging on the sixth directive. It would also cause utter devastation in shipbuilding areas such as the one that I represent.

Mr. Clarke: Obviously, I have to keep in close touch with the trading position of British Shipbuilders because of the very large sums of money that are involved, as I explained to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). We have taken no new decisions about the future of British Shipbuilders, but the position of the business has to be kept under review while it is in such a difficult state.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, first, that the worldwide shipbuilding industry is in a state of extreme recesssion? Secondly, while I welcome his answer to an earlier supplementary question, will the Government strive to make certian that all the EEC countries conform to that directive once it has been signed and agreed and that there are no hidden subsidies from our EEC partners?

Mr. Clarke: The shipbuilding industry throughout the world is in a pretty parlous state, with major lay-offs and closures taking place in Japan and in Western Europe. Although there is some prospect of the market improving, there is a general lack of orders to match the present world capacity of shipbuilding. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must stop unfair competition breaking out within Western Europe. We seek to adhere to the sixth directive and the Commission seeks to endorse it. The last complaint received was against ourselves and the French.

Financial Advice Services

Mr. Michael: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards providing advice services for the growing number of people with financial and debt problems; how he intends to finance such services in the future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maude: A great deal of advice and help on debt problems is already provided free of charge by citizens advice bureaux. The National and Scottish Associations of Citizens Advice Bureaux are funded by my Department to the extent of £8·9 million in the current financial year. They have been encouraged to seek additional funding for money advice services from the finance industry, and two money advice support projects, one in the south-east and one in the north-west, are already under way as a result of private sector funding. I understand that agreement has also been reached on two more major schemes, which will be announced soon. I believe that this will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister appreciate that there are vast increases in the numbers of people experiencing debt problems, and that there is an increase in the complexity of those debt problems? Does he accept that a large number of Government decisions, particularly the recent social security decisions and the way in which the Government are implementing them are placing increasing pressure on people and increasing the likelihood of their getting further into debt, particularly those on the lowest incomes? Does he accept that the finance that he provides is to associations that give national back-up, and not direct to the services? The Minister should accept responsibility for providing proper funding for advice services in view of the way in which the problem is likely to accelerate under present Government policy.

Mr. Maude: The funding of local citizens advice bureaux has always been a matter for local authorities. They know about local needs and it is for them to decide how to allocate money within their budgets.
As for debt increasing, of course there are people who get into trouble with debt, but there are far more people whose problems have been alleviated by having access to credit. The fact remains that the principal protection against getting into debt is for people to think carefully before doing so, and to look around carefully for the best terms. There are widely differing ranges of interest rates available, and if people were to look around more carefully the problem of getting into debt would be reduced.

Mr. Knapman: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing enough to control extortionate credit demands?

Mr. Maude: The courts have the right to re-open a credit bargain if the case is made to them that the terms on which the bargain was made are extortionate. That power lies with the courts, and we are looking to see whether it could be extended to give the courts the right to re-open a bargain on their own motion without a plea being made by the plaintiff. We have yet to see whether that is practicable. I believe that the Government are doing enough. Our system of consumer credit regulation is based on making the maximum information that is sensible available to the potential debtors so that they can work out whether the commitments into which they are entering are within their capabilities. That is the best protection we can provide.

Mr. Blair: Does the Minister accept the view of the citizens advice bureaux and of every reputable consumer organisation that there is an element in the loans market that behaves in a totally unacceptable way and peddles its loans to those who are desperate or ignorant? Does he also accept that many people are simply unaware of the powers of the courts to set aside high levels of interest demanded by some of these loans sharks? Why will he not take on board the representations of those bodies and introduce tough new legislation to protect the consumers and the public interest?

Mr. Maude: I have announced today some improvements to the advertisement regulations to make more, clearer and simpler information available to people seeking credit. As for making further advice available, I believe that it is helpful for advice bureaux to seek funding from the finance industry. There is much to be said for the finance industry making that money available, because if more people are helped to pay off their debts, obviously that is in the commercial interests of the industry.

Action for Cities Campaign

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response there has been from the private sector to the Government's action for cities campaign.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have been working very closely with many private companies and private sector and voluntary organisations for many years. There has been an encouraging response from the private sector to the action for cities campaign launched on 7 March. Business organisations, including the CBI,

Business in the Community, the Industrial Society and Investors in Industry as well as individual companies and business leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to work with the Government to make inner cities prosperous. With ministerial colleagues I will be taking our proposals further with business leaders in a series of regional meetings, starting on 13 April in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To get the wheels of commerce turning, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that firms that are willing to invest in those areas, in the way that he has just described, have access to information about the extent and ownership of derelict land? If it is found that public bodies or Government Departments own any derelict land, will he ensure that it is auctioned off at an early date?

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly true that we still have far too much derelict land in our inner-city areas which, on examination, turns out to be in the ownership of some public body or other. It is for that reason that we started the register of land and, as I announced a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking steps to make sure that more public use is made of the information contained in the register and to ensure that the land is shaken out into development.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister recognise that it was the private sector and private entrepreneurs in the past that failed, especially in the north-west and in other manufacturing areas? People are not fools, and they will not fall for glossy packaging and the Prime Minister's own brand of clap-trap, because they know full well that that will not provide jobs, homes or the medical needs of the inner-city areas.

Mr. Clarke: The industrial prosperity of Manchester was based on the success of its entrepreneurs, industrial leaders and private sector industry. It is true that Manchester's economy has undergone considerable change and that it has gone through great difficulty in the upheavals of recent years, but, in my opinion, Manchester is now coming back strongly. It must be in the interests of the people of Manchester to attract leaders of industry, investors in new business and private sector activity back into the city. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not react in the same way as his city council does from time to time, by being positively hostile to private sector investment in that city.

Mr. Summerson: While the Government's initiatives on the inner cities are welcome, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that certain local authorities obstruct the private sector through their use of planning powers? Will he take to himself powers to ensure that that obstructionism does not succeed?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are often pressed on the contribution that local government should make. Indeed, it needs to make a contribution, and the best contribution that it could make would be to be business friendly and to seek to attract to the cities the private sector investment that is needed by the residents if they are to have the hope of new jobs. I deplore any obstruction—through the planning process or in any other way—on the part of just a few councils to the idea of fresh private investment corning to their areas.

Mr. Caborn: Is the Minister aware that after the hype of the launch on the inner-city initiatives and all the gloss that went out, two sobering statements were made, by the Confederation of British Industry and by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce? The CBI stated:
Firms will have to be able to justify their contribution to shareholders.
It was stated of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which represents 65,000 companies:
The association was scathing about the lack of recognition of the chamber's key role in a range of business and social issues.
The Minister is asking local authorities to be business friendly but, quite honestly, when one considers the declaration of UDC status such as took place in Sheffield, when even the chamber of commerce was not invited to the launch, which it had to gatecrash, that type of co-operation does not appear to have been taken on board by the Government.

Mr. Clarke: I do not know what the opposite of hype is, but the Labour party has certainly been guilty of it in recent years with regard to just about every new idea for inner cities that has come forward.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): They whinge.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition whinge about absolutely every measure that anyone proposes and they take the general view that it is all a waste of time.
Our major aim over the summer is to try to attract private companies to take part in inner-city activity. I agree that we have to get the message across to those companies that it is in their commercial interest to do so. It is sensible, commercial practice for a large company that wants, at the same time, to be a responsible corporate citizen, to take part in such activity. That is the American experience, and we and the CBI agree. That is the message that we shall be giving.
I am sorry if we did not acknowledge the valuable work of many chambers of commerce. I have worked extremely closely with chambers of commerce and their members in many parts of the country, and they have been actively involved in our work.
I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the announcement of an urban development corporation for the Don Valley is one of the best bits of news that Sheffield has had in recent years. It will bring that derelict land back into use because the decision-making processes of UDCs have proved, in practice, to be extremely quick and effective. There is, of course, a substantial commitment of Government money behind the UDCs.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to praise the work of the private sector, especially in Nottingham, and in particular the work of David White and his colleagues on the Nottingham development enterprise hoard? That board has done much to ensure that the private sector responds to the need to renew those areas of Nottingham that require such renewal.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. David White chairs the Nottingham development enterprise board. He has got together a group of the leading business men of the city, who are financing their own secretariat, commissioning reports, as well as setting out a policy on how different

parts of the city will be revived. They have the active co-operation of the Conservative-controlled city council and the Labour-controlled county council. I am glad to say that the completely negative attitude of the Opposition Front Bench has made no impact in the inner-city area of Nottingham.

Inner Cities

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the future of inner-city policy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have the benefit of a great deal of advice, solicited and unsolicited, on inner-city issues, some of which is reflected in the document "Action for Cities", published on 7 March, which has been very well received.

Mr. Maxton: In view of the praise that has been heaped on Glasgow in recent months by the Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister regarding the GEAR project and inner-city improvement, will the Chancellor take the opportunity to pay due credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who instituted the scheme for GEAR when he was Secretary of State, the Labour-controlled Glasgow district council and the Labour-controlled Strathclyde region? Is not the lesson of Glasgow and the improvements that have been carried out there that the Government should give the resources and the powers to locally elected Labour-controlled authorities to get on with the job?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I gladly pay tribute to his right hon. Friend and to the local authorities. I trust that he will also pay tribute to the Government, the Scottish Development Agency, my right hon. and noble Friend for his major contribution, and to the private sector. The private sector has been the vehicle by which most of the investment has gone into GEAR. If we can maintain the sort of policy that has, in recent years, flourished in Glasgow we will make progress. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would have words with some of his hon. Friends in cities such as Manchester and elsewhere who do not appear to have picked up the basic message of co-operation.

Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. and learned Friend's inner-city initiative include the ability to help finance the start-up costs of business incubators or business technology centres, which will help small businesses to establish themselves?

Mr. Clarke: It certainly does. The Government have a multiplicity of ways in which they can support business start-up premises, managed workshops and technology centres of the type described by my hon. Friend. Various Departments of state have their different agencies and funds and any projects that come forward will be looked at eagerly by all my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Ms. Mowlam: How does the Minister expect local authorities to be business friendly in the inner cities, and how does he expect them to finance debt services, when, after the introduction of the poll tax, central Government will control 75 per cent. of what was peviously local authority funding? Is it not time that the Minister became local authority friendly?

Mr. Clarke: But central Government and private business between them have always paid for the majority of local government expenditure. That is true under the present system and it will be true under the new system. Domestic rates and the community charge provide only for the minority of local government expenditure in any event.

Mr. Raffan: As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, the serious problems affecting our inner cities also affect the centres of many smaller towns. Will he assure the House that the initiatives announced in the Government's "Action for Cities" campaign will apply to those smaller communities?

Mr. Clarke: The urban programme and urban priority areas can cover a wide range of communities. I agree with my hon. Friend that many of the problems affecting inner cities—lack of economic activity, high unemployment and so on—are found in other parts of the country as well. I hope that in England all those in urban priority areas are benefiting from our proposals, and I trust that my hon. Friend will find that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales tackles the problems in his constituency vigorously.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has told us that there is not a single new policy for the inner cities, and the Minister has been unable to tell us whether any substantial new resources will go into the inner cities, at least to compensate for the massive reductions in rate support grant. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect the same package of measures with virtually the same resources to succeed in the future when it has failed in the past?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not the first to pick up a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and use it somewhat incorrectly. As he knows, there were no fewer than 12 new announcements at the conference that we held on Monday. Although all the money came from the existing PESC provision, £250 million or thereabouts was directed to new policies in the inner cities to which it had not been directed before. The hon. Gentleman's wholly false analogy with arguments with local government over rate support grant represents another failed attempt to denigrate a very substantial policy.

Steel Industry

Mr. Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was (a) the number of employees in and (b) the output of the steel industry (i) when last nationalised and (ii) for the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Atkins: The British Steel Corporation employed 251,000 people in 1968. At the end of 1987 it employed 51,500 people. Its liquid steel output in the first full year after nationalisation was 23·6 million tonnes. In 1986–87 its output was 11·3 million tonnes, although it will be higher this year. The reductions in part reflect the privatisation of certain BSC activities in recent years.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that quota arrangements in the EEC have failed to bring down output in certain countries that agreed to bring their output down, and now that our productivity in the steel

industry is so good, is it not time that we pressed for quotas to be abolished and allowed a privatised steel industry to go in and clean up the market in Europe?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been leading the way in doing just what he asks in Europe, and we shall endeavour to keep up that campaign.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Minister considered the fact that, had the industry not been taken into public ownership—with all the investment that stemmed from it—it is unlikely that we would have a steel industry left today?

Mr. Atkins: Let me make it clear that most of the money that the Government have put in over the years has been to support uneconomic operations and maintain capacity that the market did not need. It is not, I emphasise, a debt; it is an accumulated deficit and it has gone for good.

Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to note that the excellent figures that he announced include those for Teesside steelworks, which has shown the best improvement in productivity of all and has become the most competitive steelworks in the country? The improvement would have been even greater if the Cleveland county council rate had not increased by 30p this year to cover the cost of an additional 2,000 employees engaged by Cleveland county council in the past two years, none of whom produces anything.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual cogent way. I would point out that productivity has increased from 13·2 man-hours to 6·2 man-hours since 1979–80. That is an indication of the vast improvement in productivity in British Steel in recent years.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that those figures represent a profound disturbance in the lives of tens of thousands of steelworkers and that we lack any authoritative survey of the social costs of the changes? Will he agree to consider initiating a scientific, objective study of the effects of those changes? A few people's lives were transformed for the better, but there have been enormous changes, including an increase in mental and physical ill-health and other problems among steelworkers' families. Will the Minister tell us that the social factors will be examined and included in the equation?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the numbers of people who have left the steel industry as a result of the slimming down of the industry, improvements in productivity and a variety of other factors. I pay tribute to those within the work force, led by the trade unions, who negotiated and understood that productivity agreements and the slimming down that took place were necessary. Health and worries about unemployment are not matters for me.

European Regional Development Fund

Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception.

Mr. Atkins: The value of the grants is £1,482 million.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the size and extent of the grants, which are impressive, have been sufficiently well publicised? If not, what does he intend to do?

Mr. Atkins: I am satisfied that publicity arrangements for ERDF grants are satisfactory. As my hon. Friend will know, the grants are announced in batches at various

times throughout the year by the Commission through press notices. At the same time, interested Government Departments issue press notices, and where appropriate local notices are issued as well. There is always room for improvement, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity that he has given me to re-emphasise the importance that we attach to the grants.

Local Authorities (Rating and Capital Expenditure)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about three issues which will require amendments to be introduced to the Local Government Finance Bill. Two relate to recent court decisions affecting rating, and one relates to the control of local authority capital expenditure in England and Wales.
First, it is central to the rating system that the value of a hereditament should reflect the physical condition of the property and the "state of the locality" at any particular time. But the basis for the valuation should be the property market conditions as they were at the date of the last revaluation.
For many years now the view has been that the expression "state of the locality" related to its physical state and its amenities, and that in order to make a case for a change in rateable value appellants had to show that there had been physical changes to the property or its locality.
This view was recently tested in the case of Addis v. Clement, which turned on whether a factory on the borders of the Lower Swansea Valley enterprise zone could rely on the introduction of the EZ to seek a reduction in rateable value. The Court of Appeal upheld the traditional view by holding that the establishment of an EZ was not a change affecting the state of the locality. The House of Lords, however, took the opposite view.
Following that judgment, it appears that ratepayers may obtain changes in rateable value to reflect changes in market conditions since 1973. Many thousands of new proposals may result. In my view, changes in economic circumstances should be taken into account at the general revaluation in 1990.
I therefore propose to bring forward amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill so that, with effect from midnight tonight, proposals to amend current rateable values will be determined according to the law as it was understood to be prior to the decision in the Addis case. This means that changes will be taken into account only in so far as they relate to the physical state of the hereditament and its locality. Changes in economic factors will be taken into account in the 1990 and subsequent revaluations.
Proposals already made will be decided, where relevant, in the light of the law as decided by the House of Lords in the Addis case.
The second issue affects the rating of water hereditaments. Most such hereditaments are currently rated by statutory formula. Others, particularly sewage treatment works, have, however, always been treated as excluded from the formula and rated conventionally. The Court of Appeal has now held, in the case of Severn Trent Water Authority v. Cakebread, that the Water Act 1973 changed the statutory definition of a water hereditament so that those hereditaments previously excluded from the formula are covered by it, even though the formula did not make allowance for that.
This decision would give a continuing windfall benefit to water authorities. We have therefore decided to restore the law to the position previously accepted for many years, also with effect from midnight tonight.
These two decisions will affect the revenue of the local authorities concerned. Rateable values are of course constantly changing as a result of the appeals process and net additions to the rateable stock. Ordinarily, and by agreement with the local authority associations, rateable values, once set for a year, are not changed for rate support grant purposes, for that year or earlier ones. Exceptionally there is provision in section 67 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for authorities to be compensated if they suffer a reduction of more than a prescribed proportion of their rateable value in any year. This proportion is presently set at 2·5 per cent. It is not yet clear whether, as a result of these decisions, any authority will lose rateable value in excess of that level and, therefore, whether the existing arrangements will be triggered. While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are prepared to listen to representations on this, we see no need to extend the existing arrangements for compensation. We intend, by making our proposals effective from today, to limit the losses which might otherwise arise.
Thirdly, I have to inform the House that, once again, a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system.
Only a minority of authorities are involved, but the sums involved are large. Individual deals can give rise to future expenditure of several hundred million pounds. If all options granted under agreements recently entered into are taken up, several billion pounds of capital expenditure may be incurred. No Government could ignore evasion of their expenditure controls on this scale.
A number of different devices are being used. They fall into two classes. First, there are schemes under which local authorities are acquiring capital assets on terms which are outside the letter of existing capital controls — for instance, by the taking of medium term leases or by barter. Secondly, there are schemes under which local authorities are raising money by lease and leaseback or sale and leaseback of their operational assets. This is borrowing in fact, although it may not be borrowing in law. In effect, money is being borrowed by disposal of capital assets in order to finance deficits on revenue account.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is exactly what the Government are doing.

Mr. Ridley: Amendments have been made to the prescribed expenditure regulations for England and Wales. These will take effect from midnight tonight. But the amending regulations will be temporary in the first instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will consult local government and other interested parties about whether any changes or clarification are required before the amendments are made permanent. We have adopted this procedure to avoid any repetition of the events of 1986–87, when consultation preceded a change in the regulations and when nearly £2 billion worth of deals were rushed through in the interim.
The main changes made by the regulations are that, with some exceptions, acquisition of a leasehold interest in land for a term of more than three years will score as prescribed expenditure. The present limit is 20 years. And, regardless of term, prescribed expenditure will be scored on acquisition of a lease of property in which the authority


holds a superior interest or which has during the previous five years been the subject of a development agreement to which the authority was a party. There are also some changes in the provisions about capital receipts where acquisition of the assets concerned did not involve prescribed expenditure.
Some authorities may as a result of the new regulations incur prescribed expenditure as a result of the exercise of options provided for in agreements already entered into. I and my right hon. Friends will consider issuing additional capital allocations where we are satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls.
Subject to the approval of Parliament to the necessary provisions, we propose to supplement the changes in the regulations with certain changes in the primary legislation. Those changes are as follows: to clarify that, when a local authority acquires land in terms other than freehold for cash, the amount of prescribed expenditure scored is the value of the interest acquired on the assumption that it was acquired freehold and for cash. That was the intention of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; to provide that where a local authority acquires property, or where works are carried out on a property which the authority owns, and valuable consideration for the acquisition of the works is given but not in money, then prescribed expenditure will be scored; to clarify that, where a local authority acquires an interest in or right over land and the interest or right does not confer a right of occupation, nil prescribed expenditure is scored only if the interest is neither a freehold nor a leasehold.
In addition, we intend to widen the statutory definition of prescribed expenditure to include the acquisition of share or loan capital in a body corporate and expenditure incurred in the discharge of obligations under a guarantee or indemnity relating to borrowing by a person other than the local authority.
All the legislative changes that I have outlined will be included in the Local Government Finance Bill. They will, however, be made effective from midnight tonight.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the effect of enterprise zones, which he now complains of and which he seeks to change by changing the law from midnight tonight, was always predictable and was forecast by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) speaking for the Labour party in 1980 when the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill became an Act? After eight years, the enterprise zone problems in that regard are now coming home to roost. They have resulted in increased rental values inside the zones, decreased rental values outside the zones and a consequent very large and continuing loss of income to local authorities as a result of rateable values being depressed.
Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that the city treasurer in Swansea has calculated that the loss to the city's finances could be in excess of £1 million? Is the Secretary of State also aware that in Salford—another enterprise zone — the local authority has calculated that the Secretary of State's decision is likely to result in very large rate increases or a continuing loss of income to the city's finances?
There are 19 enterprise zones at the moment. In all those areas, local authorities and ratepayers have sustained and continue to sustain very large losses in income and therefore sustain extra penalties as citizens of those communities. In addition, is the Secretary of State aware that enterprise zones continue to attract the transfer of firms and companies across the boundaries, simply relocating companies from one area to another without necessarily or very often creating new jobs?
Why will the Government not recognise that attempts to ring-fence the economic effects of enterprise zones have failed and will continue to fail? Apparently the Government recognise that—at least privately—because in Monday's glossy press release document on policies for the inner cities enterprise zones are relegated to a single sentence in 32 pages. The Government have abandoned their attempts to monitor the impact and effect of enterprise zones.
Will the Secretary of State make clear what redress will be available to local authorities and ratepayers in those areas? Although I welcome his commitment to listen to representations from the local authorities — that is certainly the right thing for him to do—it seems clear that in most cases the provisions in section 67 of the 1980 Act will not be adequate to allow him to compensate them. I ask him to reconsider the provisions to ensure, through legislation if necessary, that the local authorities and their ratepayers can be properly compensated.
The Secretary of State has also decided not to accept the decision of the courts. That means that, unless he makes arrangements for adequate compensation, the people involved will not be able to benefit from the court judgment. That is his intention, but if he does not intend them to benefit from the decision it is surely incumbent on him to arrange for them to be properly compensated in some other way.
The Secretary of State has made an important and complicated series of technical financial announcements about local authority finance. Will he confirm—

Mr. Tony Banks: What about Westminster and the cemeteries, then?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the local authorities to which he refers have been acting within the law? Is it not strange that he has uncomplimentary things to say about them, but nothing to say about the banks in the City which are falling over themselves to facilitate these deals?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is because they are their friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end of this chat across the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: Why not speak to the bookie's runner?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am referring to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Dr. Cunningham: Why is it that yet again the Secretary of State has made a statement without mentioning the range of effects that are likely to follow? Will he confirm, for example, that his proposals will affect large and small local authorities right across the country, under Tory as well as Labour control? Will he confirm that the proposals will affect the capital programmes of many of those


authorities, including house-building programmes, redevelopment programmes and capital expenditure on leisure centres and other such facilities? Will he also confirm that the statement has implications for budgets that have already been fixed, and rates that may already have been announced for the coming financial year? Will that not cause severe problems in some local authority areas?
I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal that these matters should be the subject of amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill. But what are the Government's intentions with respect to the tabling of those amendments? Will he assure us that they will be tabled in the House of Commons, so that we have the proper time and facilities to debate them in Committee, rather than being pushed into the Bill in the House of Lords at the last moment, as the auditors' powers have in the Local Government Bill which will be before us later today?
May I also have an assurance that the Committee will have additional time to consider these important proposals? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that his amendments are tabled in good time for us to consider all their implications before they are debated in Committee? We are fed up with important decisions on local government finance and powers being bounced through the House without our having adequate time to discuss them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On documentation, the Secretary of State's bag-wallah has been moving around passing out copies of the statement. Why—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the term means.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made some comments about the merits or demerits of enterprise zones, which do not arise on the statement. His comments may or may not be true. The point is whether the state of the locality should be taken into account when considering a revaluation proposal or whether only the physical state of the land or property should be the subject of a revaluation. It is that legal point that has caused me to make this statement. The Court of Appeal thought that the law was as we all thought it was, but the House of Lords has decided otherwise. Therefore, it is necessary to put it right.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's implied support for putting this right through an amendment to the Bill. It was clear that he was concerned about the local authorities whose revenue would be affected if we did not put it right in the future. That is what we want to do, and we look forward to his support.
In relation to compensation, as I said in my statement, there are precedents for dealing with the matter. I have nothing further to add to that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the court judgment. Yes, I am accepting the court judgment; that is why it is necessary to legislate. [Laughter.] Those who have benefited in the past will be able to enjoy their lower rateable values; those decisions are not being upset.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about sale and leaseback and lease and leaseback. The transactions we have all read

about, including the question of Brent town hall, appear to be legal at present, although they will not be legal from midnight tonight. That is all we are seeking to do.
I join the hon. Member for Copeland in condemning those who have felt it to be a good investment to make major loans to local authorities because they must realise that they are at risk, partly because the Government do not stand behind local authorities and partly because some of the deals are based on options, which it might be more difficult to exercise in future. Of course, the regulations and the new legislation will apply to all councils. However, only a small number have been abusing the system, and I think that they are all under the control of the Labour party.
The amendments will be produced as soon as possible and I am hopeful that they will be available for the Report stage. Since the Committee has not been able to fill the time allotted to it, I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman is asking for more time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the House's attention to the fact that we have a full day ahead of us. I ask for brief, and single, questions on this matter.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ratepayers in Ealing will warmly welcome the third of his announcements this afternoon. A £100 million deferred purchase loan has recently been taken out by the Labour council, the repayments of which will total £20 million a year but not until after the lifetime of the present council. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that existing negotiations, details of which have been sent to his Department, cannot now proceed without his consent?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the case of Ealing, the deal has been done; therefore, it is legal and stands. However, the deal contains options that are not of a legal nature until they are exercised. It may be more difficult for the council to exercise those options after the statement I have made today.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that many local authorities are forced to engage in leaseback and barter deals not because of outrageous overspending but because they simply cannot provide even the minimum level of service demanded by the Government? Moreover, is he aware that many of those councils are in that stale because they are historic low spenders, not because they are overspenders? Will the Secretary of State give the House time to debate these important new principles on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Ridley: I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. In the main, councils that engage in these massive borrowing exercises—which is what they are — are, at the same time, councils that massively overspend; they are borrowing to finance their overspending. I have listened with patience to the hon. Gentleman for many hours already, and no doubt I will have to listen to him again on the subject of these clauses.

Mr. John Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that today's announcement will be welcomed not only by the ratepayers of Ealing but by all honest local authorities throughout the country? Does he agree that creative accounting amounts to municipal deception, and will he confirm that appropriate steps are


being taken in the Committee on the Housing Bill to ensure that local authorities are not able to transfer their council estates to other side-by-side companies to evade the provisions of that Bill and the rights of tenants?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These practices represent massive borrowing of capital moneys to finance revenue expenditure, which will then have to be paid back in later years by councillors who may not have been elected and by ratepayers who may not be ratepayers at present, and that would be to mortgage the future in an unacceptable way.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The first part of the Secretary of State's statement concerned the effect of a legal decision arising from the setting up of an enterprise zone in Swansea. We have now heard that there is to be a mini U D C in Leeds, with many of the results which flow from an enterprise zone. Do I deduce from that that the amendments—when they are revealed to us at a later stage — will affect the result of a mini U D C in Leeds?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, because urban development corporations do not have de-rating as part of their attractions. Firms in urban development corporation areas pay full rates, so there can be no conceivable valuation effect in the sense that there has been with the enterprise zones.

Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend has already referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), to the coincidence of a number of these authorities also being high-spending authorities. May I tease my right hon. Friend to add a little more? Will he confirm that a high proportion of those authorities have been identified by the Audit Commission as delivering an inefficient and incompetent service? If they were simply to deliver the services that most authorities do, they would not need these arrangements.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely right. Those authorities are not only incompetent in providing current account services but, as the Audit Commission has recently pronounced, extremely inef-ficient at managing their capital assets and have not been able to manage their portfolios of land and buildings in such a way as to produce maximum advantage to the councils.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the Secretary of State aware that the budget and rate of Brent council, which he has just rendered illegal, were agreed under the law that he brought before the House and that was agreed by the House, and that they were taken out on legal advice, which pointed out that the budget was lawful? Is he aware that the budget includes cuts of 19 per cent. in services? Those cuts will lead to the loss of teachers' jobs and social service provision being slashed and are at the margin of what is tolerable. They were kept below 20 per cent. only by the leaseback arrangement, which was organised by the lead banker, Guinness Mahon. In condemning that, will he talk to his colleagues who have a financial interest in that firm?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the budget is ruled illegal it will mean that those cuts will increase from 19 per cent. to 38 per cent.? I remind the Secretary of State

that Brent has managed to avoid, by the efforts of Labour and Conservative councillors, all the upheavals and riots in London during the past decade. What does he think the response on the streets will be when those cuts of about 38 per cent. hit to the bone of people's lives, and will he take responsibility for it?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what is said. I said that the deal that Brent had carried out is legal. I regret that it is legal. I have to admit that it is, but it will not be legal for others to do the same in future. However, there is no question of upsetting that deal or of Brent's budget being illegal as a result of anything that I have said today.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome an end to devices for avoiding financial discipline and will he say now that, if any Japanese banks get into difficulty as a result of municipal default, they will be on their own?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I look forward to seeing any merchant bank, be it British or Japanese, or from Leeds, taking over the council house toilet fixtures, the town hall or whatever has been mortgaged for the loans. I look forward to seeing them making a physical repossession of those factors if they ever need to secure their security.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State has been quick to rush to the House to condemn Brent council for attempting to preserve its services. Why has he been so tardy in failing to come to the House to condemn Westminster city council for selling off its assets? Why is it that those who seek to preserve life through the provision of nurses, discretionary grants for schools and decent houses and services for all the people are condemned, while those who sell off the dead are applauded?

Mr. Ridley: No, far from being quick to come to the House, I have been tardy. I am afraid that Brent has got away with it.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not true that when the enterprise zones were set up they were, in many cases, eagerly bid for by local authorities, including many Labour local authorities? Is it not also true that they were not forced on local authorities? Indeed, Derbyshire county council refused to have one. Therefore, why do we suddenly have this display of whingeing self-righteousness by Labour Members?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. However, the statement is not about enterprise zones; it is about a technical point on rating and valuation law. It is extraordinary to hear the Opposition railing about enterprise zones at this time when they have provided many thousands of jobs in their areas.

Mr. John Battle: Is not the Secretary of State in effect using the budget mechanism effectively to draft a national leasing agreement which will tightly define all local leasing and freehold arrangements? Where is his concern for local conditions and local discretion? Is not this, in detail, another prime example of dictatorship from the centre for local government?

Mr. Ridley: The 1980 Act and the Act that went before it controlling local authority capital expenditure were all attempts to define exactly what functions local authorities had in raising and investing capital. The point is that they


have been evaded. Labour Members are keen to condemn those who evade the tax laws, but they seem to have a rather different view on those who get round the laws on capital spending.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks' behaviour in lending money to irresponsible local authorities is a disgrace and that ratepayers and residents will have to live with the consequences for many years to come? Will he have no sympathy whatever with any of those banks if they get their fingers burned?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. I cannot condemn people who do things that are perfectly legal, but I do wonder whether some of the banks have understood the great risks they face and the great difficulties that they would have if it came to repossession.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Since the changes stem from court cases in Wales and England and a House of Lords' decision is involved, will the proposals also apply to Scotland? Given that the Minister is waiting until 1990 to introduce changes in economic factors as part of the procedure, is he aware that Scotland has regularly devalued every five years? Therefore, in fairness, should not the ability to have lower rateable value apply to Scottish businesses right now? Will they lose if his proposals are applied to Scotland?

Mr. Ridley: This statement does not apply to Scotland. Scottish law is quite different and the judgment does not apply to Scotland. In no sense does anything that I have said today have any Scottish implications.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that he has closed all the leaseback loopholes so improperly and callously misused and exploited by Left-wing councils to the long-term detriment of the ratepayer? If he cannot give that assurance, will he consider tabling enabling legislation in a local government Bill to allow him to deal with future fiddles by Left-wing councils?

Mr. Ridley: The measure that I have announced today will deal with all known abuses of the capital control system, but my hon. Friend will know that, if time permits, we intend to legislate in the autumn for a total reform of the capital control system. It may well be a good idea to take powers in that legislation to stop up some of the abuses, but that is a matter that has not yet been decided upon.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Minister take it from me that the ratepayers of Salford will see his announcement today as an unnecessary penalty upon their local authority and that they will now question whether it was sensible to have co-operated all the way down the line with the Government?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. Today's announcement comes to the relief of the ratepayers of Salford and everywhere else who otherwise would have continued to lose rateable income if we had not stopped up the loophole.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legislation has been a long time in coming and that the actions of councils, such as Sheffield city council, which placed the city in hock several years ago to the Bank Paribas, should have led to legislation being brought in before this?

Mr. Ridley: I never knew that the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had a bank. I congratulate him. I hope that he will not go on lending to Sheffield.

Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Secretary of State's campaign of hatred against Labour local authorities end? Is he aware that local authorities have become involved in various financial arrangements in order to try to defend jobs and services in areas that are desperately being deprived of them by the Government? Since he is so quick to condemn those local authorities, why does he not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on the actions of Westminster city council, which sold off the cemetaries for 5p and is now trying to buy them back? Will he be ordering an inquiry into that piece of financial chicanery?

Mr. Ridley: Far from my hating Labour local authorities, when will the hon. Gentleman stop hating ratepayers?

Hon. Members: Westminster!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Richard Holt: As a councillor in the London borough of Brent from its inception in 1963 until 1974—a borough which, during the whole of that time under both Labour and Conservative administrations, never entered into the sort of chicanery that we are debating today—may I tell my right hon. Friend that the people of Brent will be most grateful, not least my mother and the other elderly people who live there, for his statement today? The only criticism that I have is that it is far too late and should have been made years ago.

Mr. Ridley: With my usual humility, I plead guilty to the charge that my hon. Friend lays against me.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not significant that it is the Secretary of State who, during the course of his tenure in office in the Department of Transport and now in the Department of the Environment, has had to come to the Dispatch Box on at least six occasions because he has become involved with the courts, mainly because of the continual battle which is going on between local democracy and the Government who are taking away powers on every possible occasion? Is it not also ironic that the Government, who give £1 billion in tax relief to the banks that are rescheduling debts with countries that cannot pay them back, are now hammering Labour local authorities because they have taken part in a similar exercise? Surely there are double standards here.

Mr. Ridley: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. The major judgment with which we are dealing today—the Cakebread judgment—arises out of an error made in the Rating (Water Hereditaments) Order 1975, produced by the Labour party, signed by Mr. Anthony Crosland, which would cost all local authorities dear.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the effect of the third part of his statement will be to protect people who do not now have the vote or enjoy the accountability of their local authorities? Does he agree that his announcement will have a great impact on people when they come to pay the community charge? That protection will save them from the perils of Socialism, which says that one can spend today and pay back later.
Will my right hon. Friend give the important assurance that the amendments will in no way block the implementation of the Local Government Finance Bill? The sooner it gets to the statute book the better.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It is of great concern to me that some authorities are prepared to borrow massively in order to have to repay in later years, when the present councillors may no longer be in office, thus landing their successors and those who will pay the community charge in future with very large bills. I believe that this House owes it to future community charge payers to prevent that sort of thing.

Mr. Keith Raffan: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's clarification of the position following the Addis v. Clement decision, which will be widely welcomed in my local authority, which contains an enterprise zone? But would he agree that the negative comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), irrelevant though they may be, will cause dismay in areas where there are enterprise zones—particularly in my own? The Delyn enterprise zone has played a significant part in reducing unemployment by 42 per cent. in the past four years. Is Labour now against enterprise zones?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) says, because he will never do anything except sit on the Opposition Benches.

Dr. Cunningham: May I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his announcement that these amendments will be presented to the House only on Report? As there are

several more weeks of Committee proceedings, why is the Committee being denied the proper time in which to scrutinise his proposals and debate them properly in detail? If the right hon. Gentleman insists on bringing them to the House only on Report, I hope that he will arrange with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide more time.
What will the right hon. Gentleman say to the council leader from Surrey, who told me a few days ago that what the Secretary of State did on capital controls did not matter, because with bankers like his council's — Rothschild's—it would always be able to find a way to do what it wanted, and to finance deals anyway?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the ratepayers in inner-London authorities a little partial? Why does he not show any concern for the ratepayers of Westminster? Why does he not intervene there, as he is so keen to intervene elsewhere? Why is he content to allow asset-stripping of cemeteries at a cost of millions of pounds to the ratepayers? Should he not be inquiring into those events, too?

Mr. Ridley: Since the hon. Gentleman appears to be going to support the new amendments that I have said will be tabled, I cannot think why he wants such a great deal of time in which to debate them—particularly as the Standing Committee has not found it possible to fill the time allotted to it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do our utmost to get the drafting done and bring the amendments before the House as soon as possible, but I cannot promise precisely when that work will he completed. Of course, I must discuss matters of time with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well the limit of my powers in relation to the Westminster matter.

Gaming Machines (Prohibition on use by Persons under Sixteen)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafés, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of 16 years.
In this way I hope to tighten a loophole in the present law and so protect schoolchildren, at least, from what has become a form of hard gambling. Although the law restricts the availability of jackpot machines to adult licensed premises, schoolchildren have easy access to AWP fruit machines, for they readily find them in fairgrounds, amusement arcades, small shops, cafes, fish-and-chip shops and snack bars, which are established features of their everyday lives.
Schoolchildren are lured to gaming machines by their flashing lights and beckoning noises, but what begins as a game can all too often develop into a tragic addiction which ruins the lives of the young and innocent and puts unbearable strains on their families. Every study which has examined the problem among schoolchildren has shown that young people can get hooked on gaming machines as quickly as they can on drink or drugs, and the effects are no less devastating.
The addiction created by machine gambling has been compared to the compulsion experienced by animals used in reinforced learning experiments in psychology. Young machine gamblers, like the animals, will play with mindless repetition and furious speed in their determination to get it right. Modern technology encourages that, because the nudge and hold features delude the young person into believing that he or she can beat the system.
The addiction produces its own social problems. As children meet regularly in the same places to play machines, they can easily become pick-up targets for the unsavoury and run the risk of gang formation. Many are tempted into lives of crime when they realise that this sort of craving cannot be satisfied from pocket money funds. School-age machine gamblers are children at risk. It is on that risk that recent media campaigns, such as the one launched in Glasgow by the Evening Times, have focused. The media are right to alert public opinion to the need for a moral crusade to change the law before even more young lives are caught in the net of hard gambling.
The urgency of the need to end this form of child exploitation is also stressed in the evidence of the many surveys that have examined the nature and scope of the problem. I refer to the National Council on Gambling's survey of state schools in four London boroughs, to the survey conducted by the Spectrum Children's Trust among 2,500 schoolchildren in the south-west, and to the study of 10,000 schoolchildren that was recently carried out in various parts of the country by the National Housing and Town Planning Council.
The evidence of these and other studies is frightening and demands that we take immediate action to end this growing social menace. Machine gambling is shown to be the major gambling problem in every age group from 11 to 16. Evidence also shows that these young schoolchildren gamble not only in amusement arcades and funfairs but

congregate every day in small shops, snack bars, fish-and-chip shops and cafes to spend their lunch money feeding not themselves but the insatiable appetite of the machines.
Schoolchildren who gamble share common problems—poor work, aggressive behaviour, truancy, emotional disturbance and stealing. It is sad to note that all the evidence confirms that those who become addicted to machine gambling were introduced to the machines before they were 13 years old and, in some cases, when they were even younger. The addiction also leads to lying, deceit, shame and mistrust, which are commonly found in the homes of young gamblers. Those problems have become so acute that a support group, Parents of Young Gamblers, has had to be formed.
Addicted children do not suddenly kick the habit when they leave school. Many progress to the betting shops and gambling casinos, while desperation for the money that their addiction consumes drives others to commit serious crimes of violence. The law is lax on this matter, not through any deliberate attempt to exploit but merely because no one foresaw the scale of the potential danger when the machines were first introduced. The problem of school-age gambling is the proverbial one of Topsy—it just grew. If it is not halted quickly, it will produce a gambling epidemic in the not too distant future.
A trade code of practice forbids schoolchildren to gamble on machines, but all the evidence proves that that code is not working. Machine gambling is every bit as common among children wearing school uniform as it is among those who are casually dressed.
The absence of an effective trade code of practice is aggravated by the nature of local planning laws. Although they can take account of factors such as noise and congestion when considering applications, they cannot pay attention to factors of morality. Thus, schoolchildren can become the easy prey of unscrupulous fairground owners, arcade managers or shopkeepers who choose to obey the dictates of their pockets rather than those of their consciences.
Let us not forget the huge profits that can be made from gaming machines. One example of profitability was noted in the recent statement by the chief executive of the Rank Organisation. Referring to bingo profits, he admitted:
Only 30 per cent. of our profits actually come from bingo. We make most money from the AWP, or 'fruit machines', followed by food and drink.
We can be sure that gaming machines in fairgrounds, arcades and small shops are no less profitable for their owners.
It is easy to see how schoolchildren can be exploited, but it is the duty of the law to protect the young and immature from being led into harmful situations, especially those that can ruin their lives. Therefore, with the lives of schoolchildren in mind, I ask the House to preempt any long-term measures that might result from the current Home Office review. The weight of the evidence before us and the strength of public opinion in support dictate that we cannot afford to wait and see. By waiting, we shall put even more young lives a risk.
Therefore, I ask the House to act to prevent young persons under 16 years gaining access to gaming machines in fairgrounds and amusement arcades, and to remove such offending machines from snack bars, small shops, cafes and fish-and-chip shops, which are the regular haunts of schoolchildren. Again, I stress the urgency with which I ask the House to act. If even one more life is lured


into the horrendous net of hard gambling as a result of our failure to give protection, it will be a tragedy, not only for the individual and his family but, now that we have been alerted to the scale and dangers of the problem, for the conscience of the House. I ask the House to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Stanley Orme.

GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafes, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of 16 years: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise with you a matter of which you are already aware, the selection in relation to what was clause 28 when it left the House and will now be clause 29 of the Local Government Bill. You have given considerable thought to the amendments that I have tabled. For one last time, I shall briefly put to you the argument for taking one or both of the amendments that I propose.
May we be allowed to debate whether, instead of the word "promote" in clause 29, as it will now be, we should have an alternative word, "commend", as was suggested in another place? The dictionary makes it clear — perhaps I did not make this argument clear before—that, whereas "commend" has only one meaning, "promote" is open to a variety of meanings. The ambiguity of the word "promote" could render the legislation controversial and problematic in a way that "commend" could not. The "Oxford Dictionary" makes it clear that there are different types of meaning of "promote", but "commend" has only a positive, welcoming or recommending sense. That word would seem to restrict the ambit of the clause and, therefore, raise a different issue about its reach.
The other matter relates to the grouped pair of amendments that were tabled by me, amendments (b) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 10. The proposed amendment would delete the word "homosexuality" and replace it by
sexual activity between persons of the same sex.
That matter, too, was debated in the other place. To paraphrase the argument in the other place, to promote or commend homosexuality is arguably scientifically impossible in the sense that, if homosexuality is a condition or an orientation, it cannot in any way be promoted or commended with any concrete effect. The alternative would be to make it clear—it would accord with the mischief with which the original proposer of the new clause sought to deal in Committee—that what was intended to be dealt with by the legislation was the promotion or commendation of sexual activity between people of the same sex. That clearly falls to be considered within the context of the legislation, and certainly—I do not think that there is any dispute—should not be promoted or commended by local authorities.
But there is a difference. In practice, it would be the difference between a local authority properly allowing a teacher, for example, to respond to a proper question, and the local authority going on with its present duties and responsibilities in commending specific activity and being seen to endorse it.
I am aware that you have given thought to the matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful. But I ask you, particularly in respect of the first point, which I may not have put clearly enough before, to consider one more time whether we could have an opportunity to have what would be the


only possible debate on the substance of the legal wording and interpretation of a controversial clause to a controversial Bill.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had discussions about the matter. In the light of what he has said to me, I have looked at the matter again. I am afraid I cannot change my selection.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of the fact that we are discussing the business at all today. The Lords amendments were available to Members of the House of Commons only some time on Friday of last week. That meant that it was impossible for hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, since the Government knew what the situation was, to table amendments until the sitting of the House on Monday. Clearly, the Clerks of the House had to judge whether the amendments were in order. Such decisions were, broadly speaking, communicated, at least to me, yesterday — I make no criticism of the Clerks in that respect—by which time, of course, it was impossible to table any further amendments and have them on the Order Paper to be accepted by you for debate. That cannot be a reasonable way for the House to deal with its business.
The problem was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with the Leader of the House during the business statement last Thursday. The Leader of the House said:
The Bill will be available in the Vote Office first thing tomorrow".— [Official Report, 3 March 1988; Vol. 1440, c. 1156.]
I am not sure that it was available first thing, but it was certainly available during Friday. That is simply not good enough to enable all Opposition parties proper time to scrutinise the implications, to table amendments, to discuss them with the Clerks, to seek advice, and to secure debates on issues that we believe to be of importance to us and to our constituents.
Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I regret that some amendments standing in my name and in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends have not been selected. Had the business not been concertinaed in such a way, the problems could have been avoided. It cannot be an acceptable or satisfactory way in which to proceed with important legislation affecting not only aspects of local government finance and contract compliance but people's civil rights and other matters of fundamental importance to us all in a democratic society. Although it is probably too late to do anything about today's proceedings, I hope that somehow these problems can be eliminated in future. The position of the House is weak and growing weaker vis-a-vis the executive — whichever party forms the executive. I cannot believe that Members of Parliament or the public want Parliament to grow weaker and weaker, especially with a mounting load of legislation from any Government. I raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to put it on record and to seek ways of ensuring that these problems do not arise again in future.

Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate what the hon. Member has said about time. I think that it is important that the Opposition, and indeed the whole House, has time to table

properly drafted amendments. I shall look again carefully at the starred amendments, but at first sight I do not think that I can change my selection.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one is criticising your selection of amendments or the advice that the Clerks have put forward. What is causing great concern to Opposition Members is the deliberate efforts by the Government's business managers to make it difficult for Opposition Members to table amendments that are in order on difficult matters, and the totally slipshod approach by the Department of the Environment and the Office of the Leader of the House. Those are the only possible explanations as to why you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerk have been put in some difficulty, as have Opposition Members.
We have heard today from the same Secretary of State on a different Bill. He made an announcement about three matters he wanted to introduce into the Local Government Finance Bill, but he cannot even promise that they will be brought forward in time to be considered in the already guillotined Committee. He is proposing, or at best promising, that they will be brought forward to be discussed in the already guillotined report stage of the Bill. That statement follows the problems that we have had with a major announcement of new policies which are to be incorporated into the Education Reform Bill so that we had to change guillotine motions and God knows what else.
The House is being treated with contempt by the Government's business managers, who are not one jot interested in giving the House the opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation. They want simply to push through slipshod amendments as rapidly as possible. It is simply not good enough. If necessary, will you, Mr. Speaker, call a meeting of the usual channels so that we can avoid what is happening at the moment occurring again and again?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As amendments to Lords amendments are by nature the most difficult to draft satisfactorily because of the limited scope of what is before us, is it not the normal practice for the period between Lords amendments coming to the House and being debated by the House after Third Reading in the Lords to be two weekends and a full week in which we can, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) argued, consider any amendments that we wish to table, see whether they are acceptable in drafting terms for consideration by you, Mr. Speaker and table further amendments if they are not? I seek your ruling about whether the timetable was complied with in this case and whether any course is open to us whereby we could proceed with this business for some time, see how far we get and resume it on another day while we deal with the remaining Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate the importance of time to the Opposition and to the whole House in tabling amendments, particularly to Lords amendments. Although the matters that have been raised have my sympathy, they are not matters for me. Perhaps they should be pursued with the Leader of the House when he is here tomorrow.

Clause 1

DEFINED AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out line 13.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 6, 31 and 33.

Mr. Grist: The Development Board for Rural Wales is established to operate as a development agency with economic and social functions in rural Wales. The DBRW is akin to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Development Commission in England, which are both precluded from the Bill's provisions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales ensures that the board exposes its activities to competition and uses private contractors wherever it is possible and reasonable.
The opportunity has also been taken in amendments Nos. 31 and 33 to remove the board from the competitive tendering provisions of part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 governing building and maintenance by direct labour organisations. The part III provisions have little practical impact on the board as they apply to bodies with direct labour organisations of about 30 employees. The board has only 12 employees in its organisation.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that the board is seeking these amendments?

Mr. Grist: Yes.

Mr. Wigley: That being so, can the Minister provide any enlightenment as to why the provision was included in the Bill in the first place?

Mr. Grist: I believe that it was a slight oversight.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

OTHER DEFINITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 38, leave out "a parish or community council".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When parish and community councils were added to the list of defined authorities in clause 1, it became necessary to delete the reference to them in clause 3 which implied that they were not defined authorities. This was only noticed after the Bill had left this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

REPORT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 10, line 11, leave out "the first relevant date" and insert "30th September".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 28 to 30.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments bring the Scottish report dates into line with those applicable to England and Wales.
There was some discussion about this in Committee, and a plea was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for a consistent approach north and south of the border. Although the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Maryhill, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) also spoke about it. He said:
The date of 31 December specified in the Bill could give rise to practical problems. The Bill does not say, 'By the last post on 31 December'—if there is a last post … Can the Scottish Office confirm that an official, or at least a Minister will be present in New St. Andrew's House and that the doors will he open to receive the hundreds of annual reports at one minute to midnight on hogmanay?
I am glad that in response to that my hon. Friend said:
throughout the year Scottish Office Ministers are available.
We did see the force of the argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian. It is no part of my desire to see the terms of the Bill impinge on the happiness of Scotsmen at hogmanay, hence the amendment.
However, a more weighty argument was made by the hon. Member for Maryhill who said that we should have consistency north and south of the border.
What was a practical proposal by the Accounts Commission has simply been rendered redundant by the introduction into the Bill of a further refinement of the audit process.
As previously drafted, reports by Scottish authorities were to be prepared by 30 November and submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 December. The Bill now requires reports by all authorities, including Scottish authorities, to be prepared by 30 September and sent both to the Secretary of State and to auditors by 31 October. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland takes the view that it is no longer necessary to have different dates for preparation and submission of reports for Scotland. This is because the Bill now makes provision for auditors to check the statements of rate of return for those activities covered in the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980, as well as those covered by this Bill and to highlight any discrepancies in the report. This will ensure that the reports received in the Department are subject to scrutiny and based on audited figures. I am sure that the House will agree that that provides welcome consistency north and south of the border.
I hope that the House will agree that these are uncontentious points. Indeed, they are in response to the hon. Member for Maryhill who spoke, not only on behalf of herself, but the Opposition when she said:
The Opposition believe that it is only fair that England, Scotland and Wales should keep to the same dates, whatever they may be." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 November 1987: c. 620–24.]
It is perhaps slightly ironic that I am responding to the representations of those hon. Members when they are absent today. However, I am sure that in due course the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) will bear that news to his colleagues—[Interruption.] Yes, I


realise that they are in Scotland at a conference. The amendment does precisely what they asked and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: In response to the Minister, although Labour Members are not present [Interruption.]—although the hon. Members who raised those points are not present—I am sure that they will appreciate what the Minister has said because it shows that the Government have at least some sense of humour. I am glad to note that Scottish custom, tradition and long usage has been taken into account in producing the changes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish that the Minister would convey to his colleagues the same willingness to make sure that the same rules apply north and south of the border and in Wales in other pieces of legislation. On the Housing Bill, for example, it has been strongly argued—but not yet accepted — that what is happening in Scotland should happen in England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister could use his best offices to secure similar provisions across the border in that Bill as he has now secured in this.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 17

LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 14, line 17, at beginning insert
Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Questions relevant to code of Practice on Employment of Disabled),".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Hon. Members will have noted that, apart from these two amendments, no substantive changes to the provisions of part II of the Bill were made in the other place. Their Lordships accepted the principle behind the provisions, as did this House, that local authorities should not be in the business of setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters which are already the subject of existing statute and which have, where appropriate, their own enforcement processes.
The position in relation to the Race Relations Act 1976 is quite different. In it, the local authorities are given a specific statutory role of enforcement, and this is acknowledged in the Bill in clause 18, where the local authorities may ask specific questions of contractors, and take into account the replies that they receive.
However, the statutes directly relating to the employment of the disabled are the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts of 1944 and 1958 which do not include such a role for local authorities. I shall give reasons why that is correct later. Their Lordships accepted, as did this House, the principle that local authorities should not assume the role of enforcing the provisions of those Acts, a role which rightfully belongs to the employment service of the Department of Employment.
What we are all seeking—their Lordships, this House and certainly the Government — are the best possible opportunities for the disabled to be able to gain

employment. I would like to emphasise our total commitment to the principle that disabled people should have every opportunity to obtain useful and gainful employment. Our record on positive measures to help disabled people gain those opportunities is strong.
For example, last month sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 came into force. Those measures include a requirement to assess the needs of disabled school leavers, taking account of a range of services including education, vocational training and employment. We have also recognised that disabled people on income support should be able to earn more money without it affecting their benefit. and next month that disregarded sum will be increased from £4 to £15 per week.
In 1986–87 nearly 84,000 disabled people were placed in work through MSC general programmes, and over 17,000 disabled people were in sheltered employment. In 1987–88 the MSC will spend some £133 million on programmes specifically for the disabled, of which some £87 million will have been spent on sheltered employment. £22 million on employment rehabilitation;£15 million on resettlement services; and almost £9 million on training at residential training colleges.
4.45 pm
Nevertheless, it is clear that the other place felt strongly that more should be done to help disabled people with employment. There was concern about this in this House too before the Bill left here. The Government accept that they should respond to this clear feeling of both Houses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is announcing a review within his Department of the policies and programmes that he supports for disabled people in employment. The review will take account of the recently completed study by the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People. It will also take account of the conclusions that the Public Accounts Committee reaches on the National Audit Office's examination of the quota arrangement and other arrangements made for the benefit of people with disabilities.
In the light of this, I hope that the House will be willing to accept that it would be appropriate for the amendments to be reversed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may be coming on to this point. and I apologise for intervening if he is, but does he accept that what he has said so far relates only to national Government policy and to employment by central Government, whereas we are obviously concerned about local government employment policies and local government's ability to take on disabled people and employ then adequately?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I am coming to that, but if I do not satisfy the hon. Gentleman when I do come to it, I shall happily give way to him again.
If the amendments agreed in the other place were to be accepted, it is our belief that they would do nothing to further the interests of disabled people, but would in fact provide a possible means whereby local authorities could discriminate against contractors that they did not like for other reasons. Amendment 7 merely paves the way for the new clause introduced by amendment 8. That new clause empowers authorities to ask questions of potential contractors about the non-commercial matters set out in


clause 17(5)(a), in order to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.
When the amendments were debated in the other place, the argument in their defence was that there was no contract compliance requirement in the amendments; no extra-statutory enforcement rights; no compulsion for local authorities; and no interference with the efficiency of the companies concerned. Hon. Members will recognise that that is simply not the case. If the Bill was now to remain unamended as their Lordships have sent it to us, an authority could decide to refuse to do business with a particular company on the ground that, in the authority's view, the company did not have proper regard to this particular non-statutory advisory code. In our view, that is an open invitation to local authorities to exercise covert discrimination against contractors of whom they disapprove possibly for other reasons.
If all a local authority wishes to do—this was the expressed reason for the clause when moved in the other place — is bring the code of good practice to the attention of firms with which it is considering doing business, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that. Indeed, that part of the new clause in amendment 8, which would allow authorities to refer prospective contractors to relevant agencies, is entirely superfluous. Nothing in the Bill stops authorities referring contractors to the employment service or the Manpower Services Commission — the relevant agencies — if they consider that contractors need advice or guidance on employment of disabled people.
Nor is there anything in the Bill to stop authorities calling together employers in their area to discuss ways in which the various recommendations and suggestions in the code of good practice can best be implemented. That sort of action seems far more relevant to local government, and indeed much more likely to have an effect on the local people whom local authorities exist to serve, than crude contract compliance measures applied to contractors in general. Many contractors will be supplying goods made in factories miles from the authority's area and some even overseas. No system of local enforcement regarding disabled employment is sensible when a national policy is essential, and that is what we have.
The amendments are not about local authorities dealing with employers in their area. They are not even concerned with authorities' own role as an employer of disabled people—in no sense affected by the amendments—or with the way in which the 1944 and 1958 Acts are observed. They are about giving local authorities the power to discriminate against certain firms by imposing their own views on how an advisory code of good practice should be observed, and refusing to do business with them if the authority does not agree with those firms' interpretation of the code. I do not believe that the amendments would result in any more jobs for disabled people. They would give the most intransigent of authorities a new weapon with which to discriminate against contractors in a subjective and non-commercial way.
It is at the heart of part II of the Bill to deny authorities the chance to do such things; and it would be very difficult to defend not extending the practice embodied in the

amendments to other matters, such as sexual discrimination, nuclear-free zones, apartheid or anything else. We would have lost the logical distinction upon which the Bill is based.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State explain the relevance of the amendments to the local authorities? If the amendments were accepted, they might not produce more employment for the disabled, but they certainly would not produce less. Indeed, they could result in more employment possibilities. The amendments would not have automatic consequences, but they would at least challenge local authorities and their contractors to consider whether they are doing enough. That is the great merit of the amendments and why they got all-party support in the other place.

Mr. Ridley: I believe that the amendments could easily result in fewer jobs. The harassment of firms could result in them being unprepared to tender for a local authority contract. Therefore, the result could be possible employment losses and even job losses for the disabled.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the amendments are well-meaning, they might risk undermining the whole basis of the Bill — to stop political discrimination — and generally weaken Government policies that have resulted in an 80 per cent. increase, in real terms, in spending on the long-term sick and disabled?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has summarised the case that I put at greater length. We have tried to recognise the concern felt by hon. Members and the Lords that more could be done for the disabled. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced a new intitiative to find ways to help the disabled nationally. I believe that such help is better given nationally rather than through patchy and sometimes unhelpful attempts to use contract compliance for that purpose.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I support the Lords amendment. I was amazed by the Secretary of State's defence of the present position. First, he went through a long catalogue citing the so-called generosity of the Government towards disabled people. The disabled people in my constituency do not find the Government very generous.
The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that the Secretary of State for Employment will undertake a national review of disabled people's ability to get jobs. Why has the Secretary of State for Employment not done that before? Why has he waited all this time? I am sure that that question will not be lost on disabled people.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that the Lords amendment may allow local authorities to threaten contractors. What we are discussing is opening up opportunities for disabled people. If nothing else, the Lords amendment helps to raise the awareness of contractors, which is at the heart of the matter, to their obligations and to the common decency of allowing disabled people greater opportunities in the job market.
The Lords amendment is not strong. It merely allows local authorities to draw contractors' attention to the code of practice on the employment of disabled people, to consider their employment policies in the light of that code


and to enable the authority to refer them to the local disablement advisory service. There is nothing earth-shattering about that. There is no provision in the amendment that would allow a local authority to refuse a contract if it considered that the contractor was not complying with the code.
Employment quotas, as set out in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, are also excluded from the amendment. In short, the amendment is limited, but it is extremely important. It puts a marker down to ensure that local authorities and contractors who submit tenders should consider closely the needs of disabled people in the community. If we pass the amendment, it would provide an extra encouragement — not a statutory duty — to employers to employ disabled people and reduce discrimination against their employment.
It is unbelievable that the Government are contemplating the removal of the amendment, especially when we are aware that an increasing number of employers are failing to meet the disabled employment quotas, and therefore their legal obligations under the 1944 Act. In 1986, only 27 per cent. of employers carried out their legal obligations. Unemployment among disabled people is double the rate among their peers—for some disabled groups the difference is even greater.
In such circumstances, given the emotional implications for the disabled, their economic dignity and well-being, it is nothing less than a disgrace that the Government should seek to change the law not only to outlaw practices that are presently lawful, but also to seek to throw out an amendment that attempts to encourage employers to meet existing legal obligations and encourages compliance with a voluntary—I stress that word—code of practice. That code of practice was launched in 1984 with the support of the Prime Minister, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Personnel Management, Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the all-party disablement group of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is joint chairman. That code of practice encouraged employers to establish a written policy for the employment of disabled people and the rehabilitation of those who had become disabled.
Throughout what has passed for a debate on this subject and on sex discrimination, the Government have monotonously repeated that they accepted, reluctantly, racial equality as part of contract compliance because, tinder section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, local councils already had an existing statutory duty to act thus. However, by the same token the Government would not accept that disabled people or women should be included in the Bill because there was no equivalent to section 71 that related to them.
Yesterday, the Equal Opportunities Commission published the report that it has sent to the Home Secretary regarding the urgent reforms that are needed to our sex equality legislation. It has recommended contract compliance. The report is addressed to the Home Secretary and I do not know whether the Secretary of State for the Environment has received a copy. I have a copy with me today. It was sent to me this morning and it makes very good reading. It pleads with the Government to introduce contract compliance as a statutory duty on all local authorities, health authorities and other public bodies.
I understand that the Government said that if the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended contract compliance, they would consider it. There could be no better time than now — during the week of international women's day—for the Minister to honour his assurances to the Equal Opportunities Commission and to the women of this country on this matter and to bring forward an amendment in line with what is proposed in "Equal Treatment for Men and Women — Strengthening the Acts."
5 pm
It is ironic that last week the Government announced their intention to bring forward a Bill later this year to introduce contract compliance—the very same policy — in Northern Ireland. The Government hardly bother any longer to deny that their actions in Northern Ireland are being prompted by strong pressure from the United States, where a campaign to boycott investment, or even to encourage disinvestment, has been gaining ground because of persistent discrimination against the Catholic minority. The introduction of contract compliance in Northern Ireland is meant to head off that pressure.
I appeal to the House to consider what message we shall be sending out to people with disabilities and to women if we reject the Lords amendment. It is invidious and highly divisive to appear to be elevating one form of discrimination above another. The Government have been shown today to be hiding behind empty formalism to cover their opposition to contract compliance — and even to voluntary codes of practice — to improve opportunities for disabled people and for women, and we shall never forget their actions on these issues.
Contract compliance has shown its tremendous value to women in the United States. It has been welcomed in this country by a great many people, including the Institute of Personnel Management, which sees it as a valuable mechanism for spreading good and more professional codes of practice.
Baroness Platt of Writtle, who chairs the Equal Opportunities Commission, is not, I may say, a supporter of the Labour party—far from it. She said of the Bill:
Because local authorities will have the power to impose requirements and ask questions about issues of racial discrimination but not sex discrimination, their customers will inevitably concentrate on the former to the exclusion of the latter. This would be a most retrograde development, given the very serious problems of discrimination against women that still need to be tackled. It could seriously prejudice the position of women".
That comes not from a Labour peer but from Baroness Platt, who is a Conservative.
We commend the amendments to the House. We welcome the initiative on Northern Ireland, and we want the Government to act even-handedly. If they are introducing contract compliance in one form in Northern Ireland, they should introduce it in this other form on the mainland. We shall reserve judgment on the question of ethnic minorities until we see what comes of the Secretary of State's list of questions. We urge the Government to think again about the totally incomprehensible exclusion of people with disabilities and of women from the Bill. We shall oppose the Government and support the House of Lords. I know that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby, as, I hope, will those Conservative Members who believe that people with disabilities need the maximum encouragement and support and that those of


us who do not share their problems should be constantly aware of them nevertheless. I hope that for once we might defeat the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the amendments deal specifically with the disabled and not with women.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As a long-time member of the all-party disablement group, I am naturally interested in the amendments. I was intrigued when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that these are the only two substantive amendments that their Lordships suggested to this part of the Bill. I should have thought that that would give added weight to them.
When I first read the amendments, they seemed likely to help disabled people who are seeking employment. All of us must know that disabled people, once employed, are diligent and valuable employees—probably the best on the payroll—but that it is far from easy from them to get the job in the first instance. It seemed to me that the amendments might help disabled people, and I therefore proposed positively to support them. However, I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said and was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to bring forward a review of policies for the disabled. I cannot bring myself to vote with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am seriously considering abstaining, because I feel that he gave a very good explanation of his reasons for opposing the amendments.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was absolutely right in her initial decision fully to support the amendments. She is wrong to say now that she will abstain. She should have sufficient courage, as many of us have done over the years, to vote against the Government whom she supports if she thinks they are wrong. She accepts the assurance that the Government will bring forward proposals in the future, and perhaps they will. However, this is here and now and she should support the amendments on that basis. The amendments will do something positive at this moment, so why wait for proposals to emerge in the distant future which, knowing this Government, will get more and more distant? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the amendment No. 7, which is extremely good?
I can understand the Government's being vindictive in relation to contract compliance when it comes to whether an employee should or should not be a trade unionist. I can understand it when they say, "You cannot seek contract compliance in relation to those who deal with regimes pursuing policies of apartheid." I can understand that, because that is the Government's nature, and such decisions are perfectly acceptable from their point of view. However, I find it difficult to understand why they should be vindictive to the disabled, which is what their attitude amounts to. I suppose that I know the real reason: their friends may find that their profit margins will be down a little if they have to employ some disabled people.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is an absolute insult to disabled people. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heifer: No. If the hon. Lady will not join us in the Lobby, I am not giving way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: But it is an insult.

Mr. Heffer: It is not an insult. It is my view of the Government's attitude, based on the bitter experience that we have had since they came to power nine years ago. They put profits before the interests of ordinary people and concern themselves only with their friends in the City of London and those who make profits at the expense of the mass of the people. That is what is behind the clause. It is disgraceful that the Government are not prepared to give the amendment their support. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are prepared to do so.

Mr. Jack Ashley: A number of us spend much of our time dealing with disabled people, including the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and myself. We have discussed this issue at a meeting of the all-party disablement group and there is a difference of opinion between us that will probably emerge during the debate.
The Secretary of State was ill advised to speak of the Government's record of helping disabled people. He was on extremely weak ground. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. He was not in the House yesterday when the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled was condemned for failing fully to implement that Act. That is a failure by the Government. The Secretary of State mentioned what the Government had done in terms of income support. Practically everyone who is involved with disablement is concerned about the Government's failure to provide adequately for disabled people under that head. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the jobs that have been found for disabled people under the general programme of the Manpower Services Commission. He did not mention the thousands who have not been helped through that programme. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong to speak of the Government's successes in this area.
I am amazed that the Secretary of State should be opposed to the amendment. It is incredible that he should object to it. The proposed clause would be helpful to disabled people and damaging to no one. It reflects badly on the Government that they have chosen to bring their full force against the amendment and to make clear their determination to oppose it.
What is it in the clause that is terrifying the Secretary of State? It provides that local authorities will be able to refer contractors which have not adopted the recommendations of the code of practice on the employment of disabled people to the disablement advisory service. It would allow — not force — local authorities to ask questions about a company's policy on the employment of disabled people. What is wrong with that? Surely it would be a great step forward. Companies that did not have a policy could be referred to the DAS, and it would then be for the DAS to decide how best to proceed.
This simple measure would help us to ensure that good practice is promoted, and it would advance the excellent work of the DAS. No one is opposed to the code of good practice. The Prime Minister has stated:
employing disabled people makes good business sense.
I was present when the right hon. Lady launched the code of good practice. It was a happy occasion. We were all


together, including the hon. Member for Exeter, who does so much for disabled people. Everyone supports the code, and I and others are seeking merely to draw attention to it.
If local authorities are willing to help with encouraging contractors to utilise disabled people's skills, and to retain staff who become disabled, they should be permitted to do so. No one would lose by contractors having the expert advice of the DAS brought to their attention. At the same time, disabled people would gain.
However fine the code may be, and however distinguished the members of the DAS may be, no one would claim that it is getting the support or the results that it deserves. A common attitude among far too many employers is, "The code is fine but it has nothing to do with me, thank you very much."
5.15 pm
Some companies adopt the code but far too many do not. What do we do about the companies which do not? The relative failure is effectively measured by the statistic that shows that many disabled people are unable to gain employment. The level of unemployment among the disabled is twice that of the unemployment among the able-bodied. That is the official figure, which we can take with a pinch of salt. Suffice to say that a far greater proportion of disabled than able-bodied people are unemployed.
A major cause of the unemployment of disabled people is prejudice. It is vicious, bitter, vindictive, unpleasant and unacceptable prejudice. The disabled are rejected by employers who do not want to know. I know many disabled people who apply for jobs. If they are honest enough or naive enough to mention their disability on the application form, they will not even be seen. I know some disabled people who have made over 100 applications for jobs. They are not even granted an interview when they mention their disability. More effort should be made in promoting the code of practice.
Local authorities are an important weapon in the armoury for promoting the code, and the proposed clause will enhance their effectiveness. The Government argue that the proposed clause is superfluous and that local authorities will be able without it to promote good employment practices in their own areas. I believe that the clause would provide an important instrument for local authorities to acquire information that would enable them to know which employers should be referred to the DAS. It would be an easy, cheap and cost-effective procedure.
The Minister in the other place said that this aspect of the clause was superfluous. He claimed that local authorities could refer companies to relevant agencies in any event. Unfortunately, he missed the point. It is crucial that we should know which companies to refer. If local authorities sought to obtain that knowledge through general surveys, the Government would be quick to condemn them for wasting resources. They would argue that that was not the job of local authorities. The Government cannot have it both ways.
The Government suggest that local authorities will be able to discriminate against contractors during the tendering process by using their response to questions to decide who receives a contract. That is not the intention of the proposed clause. The Secretary of State should take that on board. I spoke to Lord Basnett this morning—it is his amendment—and he confirmed that that is not

the intention of the proposed clause. Instead, it would allow a basic question to be asked: "Have you adopted the recommendation of the code of practice on the employment of disabled people?" A negative response would mean that the contractor could be referred to the DAS. The amendment would not allow contracts to be withheld. It would not give local authorities extra statutory powers and duties.
I would favour an amendment that permitted discrimination against companies that did not play fair with disabled people. I am all in favour of that sort of discrimination. I would be prepared to hit contractors very hard if they discriminated against disabled people. It is discrimination that causes distress, anxiety, suffering, poverty and despair. I would deny contracts to such companies. I make no bones about that. If I could persuade local authorities to deny them contracts, I would do all in my power to ensure that that happened. The Secretary of State should recognise that the clause does not do that. It is very limited. All the clause proposes is to help to promote good practice. If the Secretary of State found that there were technical problems, he could easily change it.

Mr. Ridley: For the sake of fact, may I point out that local authorities are enabled to disallow a contractor if they are not satisfied with him? In other parts of the Bill there are powers for them to take that decision. If the new clause were in the Bill, it could be a defence against the district audit questioning why a local authority had not gone to the lowest tenderer. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not realise the effect that the amendment would have.

Mr. Ashley: The Secretary of State is trying to say that, if this small amendment was agreed, as I hope it will be, local authorities, whom I thought he trusted as responsible people elected by the electorate, would use it as a trigger to do something illegal. That is a very poor interpretation of the responsibility of local authorities. I believe that they would interpret the clause in the spirit which Lord Basnett intended—that is, to draw the attention of employers to the code of practice. It would encourage them to do that. The Secretary of State does not understand the proposed new clause. He has misinterpreted it. He is misleading the House. He should accept that it would be in the interests of disabled people.
I have spoken long enough. If the Secretary of State insists on rejecting the clause, he will show that dogma is more important to the Government than helping disabled people. The clause has no drastic implications and would not alter Government policy towards local government. It would encourage efficiency and would help employers to develop good employment practices. It would help disabled people and would give them hope. It would lead to them getting more jobs. It is absurd for the Secretary of State to say that it would lead to disabled people getting fewer jobs. That is standing the truth on its head. I hope that the House will speak clearly tonight. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby and give fresh hope to disabled people.

Mr. John Hannam: My right hon. Friend will know that the Lords amendment which he is asking us to reject is supported by a wide range of voluntary


organisations representing the disabled and by the all-party disablement group. Therefore, it is rather more of a cross-party issue than we are accustomed to.
The amendment represents a genuine attempt to advance the cause of disabled people in the vital employment sphere. Over the years I and colleagues on both sides of the House, working within the all-party disablement group, have secured the support of the Government for small but important amendments to diverse pieces of legislation. We have done this to remove discrimination or to remove obstacles which are placed in the path of disabled people trying to pursue normal lives.
We all know that the disabled desperately want to work and to live normal lives. They make very good employees, as other hon. Members have pointed out. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the best description in 1984 when she said:
People who employ disabled workers know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hard-working and have skills and abilities to offer.
I could not find a better description for employers thinking of taking on disabled workers.
The sad thing is that, despite the quota system and all the other measures which have been adopted over recent years, the level of disabled unemployment is double the rate for able-bodied people. The Lords amendment, as I read it, is designed to draw the attention of contractors to the recommendations which are put forward in the Government's own code of good practice on the employment of disabled people. The amendment seeks to get local authorities to refer contractors who have not adopted the recommendations to the Disablement Advisory Service.
The question which we face is whether the Lords amendment gives local authorities a power of any sort to force contractors into contract compliance or to interfere in their efficiency, and whether that works against the principle of part II of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for writing to me about this. My right hon. Friend has explained the Department's view, which is that the amendment would in some way give powers to local authorities to interfere in normal business practice. I find that hard to believe, just as I find it hard to accept the other point which my right hon. Friend made, that we can leave things exactly as they are because local authorities can carry this out anyway. According to my right hon. Friend, they can advise firms which are putting forward tenders for contracts to get in touch with the Disablement Advisory Service or with any other body. I do not accept that that stands up to examination.
It is only a few years since we secured an amendment to the companies legislation to require a company in its annual report to make a direct statement about what it was doing for its disabled employees and for disabled people. One could adopt the same argument as my right hon. Friend and say that we did not need that because companies could always put something in their reports about what they were doing for disabled people. In fact, Parliament judged that it was necessary to do more than that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), I cannot go into the Division Lobby against the Lords amendment. I accept my right hon.
Friend's assurance that he has been working extremely hard, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, on bringing forward a new programme for disabled employment. I welcome that assurance deeply. I can only stress how vital it is to develop a new and more effective strategy for the employment of disabled people. The position is not good. The quota system is not being enforced and too many disabled people are out of work.
I look forward to the initiative which my right hon. Friend has promised, but today I must declare my support for this small voluntary step towards good practice. I cannot go into the Lobby to vote for the rejection of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Wigley: I too support the Lords amendment and thank Lord Basnett and his colleagues for the all-party support in the Lords for this important change to the Bill, which would help disabled people if it were enacted. Like other hon. Members I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government Front Bench. Some Government Departments have had an honourable and progressive approach towards disability. I am afraid that the attitude of the Secretary of State confirms that the Department of the Environment regrettably is at the back of the queue when it comes to making progress for disabled people. We have seen that before and we see it again today.
The reality is that discrimination against disabled people exists in employment. We had this argument three or four years ago when the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) introduced an antidiscrimination Bill. Mr. Donald Stewart, who then represented the Western Isles, also brought forward a Bill. We were assured that other steps were being taken, as we have been assured today that other steps are being taken. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned what we heard in the Chamber yesterday, that assurances given two years ago about the carrying out of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 are still subject to negotiation with local authorities.
Two years have gone by and we are still no nearer getting some of those provisions brought into force. I welcome any discussion which is taking place and any progress on improving the position under the quota scheme, to which the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred and which is completely inadequate. Some of the provisions have not been enacted. We have an opportunity with the Lords amendment to do something now. Although this is a very modest provision, we have the opportunity to do something which has already been done. All we have to do is to desist from undoing what has been done in another place. Goodness me, I cannot see the Government's justification for taking this line. If we disagree with the amendment, we shall be putting the interests of disabled people second to the interests of a totally unfettered, free market economy. There are times when a Government, even this Government, must strike a balance.
5.30 pm
Instances of discrimination still come to our attention. Only a few weeks ago in my constituency surgery I learned of a case of blatant discrimination. An employer said that disabled people need not apply for a vacancy. For that to happen in this day and age, and for the Government not to support even the modest provision in the Lords


amendment, underlines the need for us to take more draconian powers. We should seek an anti-discrimination Bill which will deal with this question in the context of employment and in a number of other areas as well. People would then be aware that they cannot get away with the kind of stipulation that occurred in my constituency.
My colleagues and I have received representations from many bodies about Lords amendment No. 7. I am involved with disability matters in a number of ways. I am the president of the Spastics Society in Wales. The Spastics Society wrote to me from its headquarters in London about the amendment stating:
Research by The Spastics Society shows that disabled people suffer unjustifiable discrimination in the labour market. The clause is a modest proposal to ensure that good practice is actively encouraged in this important area. We see it as entirely appropriate that the Government's policy should be promoted in an attempt to ensure disabled people have the same opportunities as their abled-bodied counterparts. It is difficult to understand why the Government would not want to see its own policy and the work of its Departments supported in this way. Disabled people trying to find work will also feel let down if this support is withdrawn from their attempts.
I put these views formally on the record on behalf of the Spastics Society.
Hon. Members will have received similar representations. Organisations making those representations understand the difficulties facing disabled people in work. We should heed those representations. I have also received representations from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. It states:
The RNIB supports the clause, which would help the employment prospects of visually handicapped people seeking work. They have to compete on unequal terms in the labour market, in an era when the industrial base of the economy, the area in which the majority of visually handicapped people have historically found jobs, has contracted considerably. During the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of visually handicapped people getting jobs in the blue collar sector, and sheltered employment has not taken up the slack … RNIB is concerned that the positive steps which local authorities have been able to make in encouraging companies to promote equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities should be allowed to continue. Lord Basnett's clause would achieve this.
Obviously, the RNIB feels as strongly as the Spastics Society on this matter.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the umbrella organisation that pulls together on behalf of numerous disability organisations, has also made representations to all members of the all-party disablement group. This matter cuts across party lines. It states:
The amendment will not prevent contracts being awarded, but allows local authorities to refer those companies who have not adopted the Code's recommendations to the Department of Employment's Disablement Advisory Service so that they may obtain information on how to improve their policies; nor will it allow contracts to be withheld, but will enable local authorities to ask for information which can be passed on to those responsible for promoting the Code of Good Practice. In this respect the amendment also complements existing Government policy which supports the Code. The CBI, TUC, RADAR and other voluntary organisations also support the Code of Good Practice.
I know that the Secretary of State has said that taken together with another part of the Bill the amendment could create an excuse for local authorities to discriminate against companies that are not willing to go along with the requirements. If local authorities discriminate unfairly against those companies, that could be actionable. If they

discriminate on the basis of a policy against disabled people, that is completely justifiable discrimination and I would strongly uphold that.
However, the benefits that could arise from having a checklist are more important than the occurrence of a handful or one or two difficult cases. A formal checklist would act as a formal requirement to nudge and remind companies of the need to take that matter into consideration.
I do not believe that the provision will put the world right overnight, but by having a checklist approach—which is not a straitjacket, but an enabling measure—we shall ensure that local authorities that are so minded will have powers to create a checklist and companies seeking tender contracts will be aware that they must take such consideration on board. The proposal is a gentle shove in the right direction. It could be of tremendous benefit to many disabled people. It could also possibly avoid much more fundamental legislation in future. If the Government oppose this modest proposal, I have no doubt that the House must press for something very much more radical.

Sir John Farr: I rise to support Lords amendment No. 7. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier. I had been given a very pressing green card from a delegation of Royal College of Nursing members from my constituency. I had to use my discretion and make a very difficult choice between listening to my right hon. Friend and seeing Mr. Tony Atkins and my constituents from Leicester who are members of the RCN. I had a very fruitful and rewarding discussion with Mr. Atkins. However, I am placed in a very difficult position because I did not hear my right hon. Friend. If I had heard him, I am sure that I would have found his comments fruitful and rewarding. However, because I did not hear him, I can only state that I have the gravest reservations about rejecting the Lords amendment.
I listened to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). He made his comments with great emphasis, in his usual way. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) elaborated the virtues of the new clause very well.
As I read the amendment, it will allow local authorities to continue to ask questions of prospective contractors, but it would not allow local authorities to refuse contracts on the grounds that a prospective contractor did not encourage the employment of disabled people. It would allow local authorities to promote the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.
I do not believe that the new clause is very binding. It would not direct—"direct" is too strong a word—local authorities; rather it would guide them on a code of good behaviour towards their dealings with disabled people. Tributes have been paid to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for their fine work for the parliamentary disablement group. I want to add to those tributes. Quite rightly, we must recognise that discrimination on grounds of sex or colour is properly banned by law. I am not in favour of banning discrimination of the disabled by law. However, I feel so strongly about it that I would like to see legislation enacted that would make discrimination act for the disabled.
A disabled person is a bargain in the labour market. He is conscientious, keen, unfailingly loyal and hardworking. Perhaps at some time in the future when we are discussing disablement we can introduce legislation requiring employers — the Crown, local authorities or private companies — to discriminate in favour of disabled people. It would be good for disabled people, and certainly for those lucky enough to employ them.
Although I shall listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend says to try to persuade me to support his case against the new clause, at the moment I am fully inclined to support it.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: In this relatively short debate, it appears that no one except the Secretary of State is to speak in favour of the Government's line. That, surely, should make the Secretary of State think again about whether he is right in deciding that the amendment should be rejected. Certainly, I shall not accept his advice.
Lord Basnett's amendment is a modest but important improvement to the Bill. No doubt Lord Basnett tabled it in this modest form because he knew that if he went too far he would not persuade the other place to accept it, and he wanted to go as far as he could while still standing a chance of success. I am also fairly certain that he was bearing in mind the vast experience that he had gained over many years in the trade union movement, representing workers not only in local government but in a wide range of industries. He recognised that at present, despite quota systems and other efforts to ensure that disabled people have fair opportunity of employment, they have no such opportunity. We too must face up to that fact.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made it clear that some disabled people, when applying for jobs, are tempted either to omit any reference to their disability on the application form, or to deny it. It is regrettable that they are forced to act in that way, but, as most hon. Members will know, it sometimes happens. Employers often disregard disabled applicants even when the disability has no reference to the job for which they are applying, which is very sad.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) recommended more positive discrimination in favour of the disabled, and I see the case for that. It is regrettable that we should sometimes have to legislate to ensure discrimination in favour of the disabled, or any other category who might otherwise be discriminated against, but sometimes it is the only way to ensure that they receive the fair treatment to which they are entitled.
5.45 pm
As I have said, this is a modest amendment, and there is no reason why the Government should reject it. It in no way destroys the principle of the Bill. The Secretary of State knows that Opposition Members are strongly opposed to that principle, but the amendment will merely give disabled people a fair opportunity of consideration by employers.
I thought it outrageous of the Secretary of State to suggest in his opening speech — I assume that I understand him correctly—that some local authorities might not disbar contractors purely because they were not giving disabled people a proper opportunity of

employment, but might use that as an excuse to disbar them for other reasons. That is entirely wrong, and shows how the Secretary of State misjudges local authorities on every possible occasion. He seems to feel that their motivation must always be questioned by him and by other Ministers.
The amendment is moving in the right direction, and I feel that the Secretary of State should reconsider his advice. Even if he is not prepared to do so, however, I hope that other Conservative Members will join us in the Aye Lobby.
When the amendment was approved in the other place, it was widely acclaimed in the national press as an improvement to the Bill. It has also been welcomed by many voluntary organisations closely connected with the disabled. Those are further reasons for the Government to think again, and to accept this improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Before I came to the House, I had the good fortune to be a member of Glasgow district council, and a full-time union officer. From time to time, I had to represent disabled members.
The Secretary of State would be the first to condemn any local authority that did not pay due regard to the fact that disabled people must be employed. Surely, therefore, it is fitting that local authorities should establish what contractors are doing about employing them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are not talking about a window cleaner who may be contracted by the local authority to clean 20 or 30 windows. I was once a member of the finance committee of Glasgow district council. Prices have risen since I left, but we were then handing out contracts of over £1 million. In some instances the contracts awarded in one day exceeded £2 million. That is a lot of labour, and in many cases it is the big employers who are receiving the contracts.
It is only natural that local authorities should be entitled to ask contractors who are employing several hundred men and women what quotas they have for the employment of disabled people, and how those employees are being treated. I do not think that it is enough for an employer simply to say how many disabled people he employs; steps must be taken to ensure that they are not exploited. In many cases, they are exploited: there are no two ways about it.
The other local authority that covers my constituency is Strathclyde, which looks after the needs of 2·5 million people. It can give out contracts for water reservoirs, large civil engineering contracts and motorway contracts. I often hear the Secretary of State talk as if contractors were being bullied by local authorities which have all the power. That is nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about local authorities and contractors, he will know that there is often a dialogue going on on a weekly basis. Some of those companies are employing people—call them PR people, or whatever—whose job is simply to keep in touch with local councils. They have not been bullied; far from it. They know their way around the town halls, and they know who to talk to. If it is put into legislation that regard has to be given to the care of the disabled, I am sure that contractors will ensure that they inform their companies that the legislation has to be adhered to.
The Secretary of State said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be involved in


a review. He said that everything is all right because the Government have a good record on looking after the disabled. Since becoming a Member of the House I have served on almost every Committee where the Government have sought to destroy the labour and trades union legislation introduced by the Labour Government. They have weakened the unfair dismissal tribunals and done away with schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. One of their most recent acts was to abolish the wages councils. All of those actions have affected the disabled. It has meant that the disabled in our society and in the work force — those who have been fortunate enough to find a job—can be exploited.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that it is not only within private industry that the disabled are not being too well looked after. As I have said, I was a full-time officer representing public employees and I often had to defend those employees against Government employers. For example, sometimes people in the Health Service were treated shamefully because those in charge did not pay due regard to legislation. I put it to the Secretary of State that he should look at what sometimes happens in some Government Departments and in agencies such as the Health Service, which work directly for the Government. I accept that 90 per cent. of the time those Departments and agencies are excellent employers. However, there is evidence to prove that disabled employees are not being looked after and that their rights under legislation are not being exercised properly.
In spite of what I have said about bad employers, there are many good employers in the private sector and the public sector. If any review is to be held, it is within the wit of the officials serving the Secretary of State to find those good employers and to discover how they can be good employers for the disabled. They should try to get them to give evidence to the review body so that we can ensure that people are looked after properly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is clear that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was correct. So far, the only supporter of the proposal to delete the Lords amendment has been the Secretary of State. Three Conservative Members, four Labour Members, one representative of Plaid Cymru and myself have all asked that he change his mind. It is a hit shameful that the only two proposals on the Amendment Paper in the name of the Secretary of State which suggest that we should not agree with the Lords are in relation to this proposal. The all-party view expressed in the other place, the view expressed by the all-party committee on the disabled in this place and the view expressed in all the contributions to this debate has had no effect. We have said to the Secretary of State, "Please think again. You are misjudging the mood of Parliament across the parties by seeking to amend what the other place has done."
The more one looks at the Lords amendment, the more circumscribed one sees that it is. It simply says that nothing shall preclude a local authority from asking questions and from referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies if that information is necessary in order to ensure that the contractors have proper regard to the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice in relation to the employment of the disabled.
The Secretary of State admitted that that does not mean that there has to be a duty on a local authority to employ a certain number of people. That does not follow. There

is a duty to address the issue, to ask questions and to challenge what may he a failure to meet the needs of the disabled. That is the limit of the amendment. Presumably, that is why it was passed, against the wishes of the Government, in the other place.
The Secretary of State may hold the view that the amendment could prejudice the employment of disabled people. However, the advice of many agencies and charities is that the probability is that it will improve prospects for disabled people. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and other hon. Members have said the same thing.
I had occasion last year to interview for a job somebody who was disabled by blindness. In the end, for various reasons, I selected somebody else. However, I then took up with the Officers of the House what we do as a corporate body to ensure that we employ adequate numbers of disabled people arid to see whether we do our duty. I was given a perfectly courteous reply through the good offices of the Serjeant at Arms and those responsible for the employment of staff. I was told that we seek to ensure that sufficient numbers of disabled people are employed. That prompting resulted in a specific meeting to consider whether we should be better able to employ blind people or other disabled people in the House. I do not pretend that that meeting would not have taken place in time. However, it was not billed to happen. By asking some questions about the employment of disabled people, particularly the blind, the officials of the House looked again at current practice. That is what this amendment is seeking to do. It is simply to encourage people to look again at their practice.
I should like to refer the Secretary of State to the fact that he and his colleagues conceded that principle during the passage of the Local Government Bill in relation to the Race Relations Act 1975. He will remember that when the Bill was originally presented to Parliament last summer, clause 18 did not exist in its present form. The title of clause 18 is "Race relations matters". We had a debate in Committee in which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) argued that in the matter of race relations people should be allowed to ask approved questions. The Minister for Local Government, quite properly, accepted the principle in relation to the employment of individuals from ethnic minority communities and accepted the need to ensure that the practices in operation did not conflict with race relations legislation. The Bill came back on Report with an appropriate amendment. By the time the Bill went to the other place we had built in a provision so that people with non-white skins in Britain will be employed fairly and without discrimination.
The Secretary of State has accepted that there can be compromise on this issue and that is why I am not making a ranting or shouting speech. I am asking in a reasonable and, I hope, proper way for him to do for disabled people what he has done for people from ethnic minority communities. It is clear that there is universal support for what the other place did. I ask the Secretary of State to think again and to say that the Government are prepared to hear the argument and recognise the strength of feeling about this matter and change their minds at this late stage.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been made, although I made a lengthy speech earlier that contained the main arguments that the Government have advanced.
In case the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) missed it, I shall repeat the point that I made earlier. There is a clause about race relations because a specific statutory duty is laid on local authorities by the parent statute, which is quite different from the case of disabled employment. Indeed, there was a clause on race relations in the Bill when it was first published. We have consistently said that where a local authority is already an enforcement agent that should be reflected in the Bill, but, where it is not, it should not.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for their helpful and constructive speeches as well as for the work that they do for the all-party disablement group, which I very much admire. To have to make up their minds about this amendment puts them in a difficult position as they are normally supporters of the Government. Perhaps the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is prepared to abstain means that what I had to say earlier caused her to see that this is not the best way to achieve the results that the House wants. The initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to review employment for disabled people will prove to be a better way forward.
6 pm
Having listened to the debate carefully, there appear to be two misconceptions about what the Lords amendments would achieve and what they mean. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Richardson) went off on to the subject of women. I would be out of order if I were to discuss that matter under this amendment—[Interruption.] It would be perfectly in order to discuss disabled women, but not discrimination against women as such. However, I do not intend to discuss this whether it is in order or not.
The hon. Member for Barking said that if the clause remained in the Bill a local authority would not be able to refuse a contract simply on the ground of the disablement employment policies of a contractor. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that is not the case, because no local authority is bound to accept any tender. However, if it fails to accept what is clearly the lowest and best tender, it must give good reason for so doing publicly, first, to the district auditor and, secondly, to its ratepayers, who have every right to supervise its decisions in such matters. It would not be possible to refuse a contractor's tender because of his disablement employment record and at the same time get it past the district auditor. If this clause were in the Bill, that would be a perfectly valid reason for refusing a tender from such a contractor.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave the game away. He said that if authorities were to be subjective and not objective in interpreting a firm's use of the code and its compliance with it, it would be actionable if they made an ill-judged response. Yes, it would be, without the clause, but it would not be with the clause. The new clause says:
Nothing ߪ shall preclude a local authority from—(a) asking questions or seeking information relating to work force matters and considering responses to them or ߪ consideration of the information is reasonably necessary to ensure".

The words "is reasonably necessary" will fall within the judgment of the local authority. If the local authority's judgment were that it should not award a contract because of the disablement employment policies of a contractor, the result would be that that decision would be proof against challenge. That is why the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his interpretation.

Mr. Wigley: Did not the Secretary of State rest his case on the slightly different premise that a local authority would be using this as an excuse and not as a reason and might have some other motivation at the back of its mind? If we accept that local authorities are working in a bonafide fashion, would the Secretary of State accept that it is not unreasonable for them to bear this in mind in deciding how a contract is determined?

Mr. Ridley: They may be wrong because they may have misjudged a contractor's compliance. He may be the best complier in the world, but if the local authority gets it wrong he will have no redress. Local authorities may use the disablement employment excuse when they have other reasons in mind. That is why I do not believe that the main result of the clause will be to help disabled people. It will give local authorities a subjective method of discriminating against contractors on spurious grounds.
The second theme of the debate was, "What is wrong with new clause 18(b)?" Clause 18 (b) relates to
referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies.
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. Any local authority may refer an employer to the Disablement Advisory Service and may call meetings of local employers to discuss their practices. If a local authority is still not happy, it can bring in the MSC or the Disablement Advisory Service. That is possible at present and will remain so. It is unnecessary, therefore, to incorporate it into the legislation. It does not achieve anything that is not already in the legislation. The distinction is between local authorities doing what is perfectly right and proper and deciding on the award of tenders on their subjective judgment as to whether a contractor complies with the code of practice.
Those are the misunderstandings that arose, and I believe that we will help more disabled people into employment by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment suggested than the amendment could ever hope to achieve.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the clause was vindictive towards disabled people. I do not believe that that is remotely true. He further said that many contractors would not employ their full share of disabled people because it would bring their profit margins down. That was vindictive towards disabled people. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that employing disabled people is bad for profits and that therefore firms do not do it was a slur on disabled people, and the House was revolted to hear him say that. I hope that he will withdraw it, and I hope that the House will reject this new clause.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not say that the clause as drafted was wrong; I said that the attitude of the Government to it was wrong. I said that some employers would no doubt feel that they might lose a bit of profit, but that is not a slur on disabled people. I have always fought for disabled people and I shall continue to do so. It is the Government's attitude that forgets disabled people.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I can confirm at the outset that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has just repeated exactly what he said in his speech—[Interruption.] After the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), winding up with an abstention, we need take nothing from her.
The clause is so modest that one could ask why we should bother with it in the first place. However, there is a thoroughly justifiable reason for the clause. It is important that we should send signals to all sections of the community.
The clause was drawn up not out of thin air, but from the results and the experiences of our debates in Committee and on Report before the Bill got to the Lords. It was drawn up to take account of all the Government's objections to earlier amendments. It does not extend the enforcement role of local authorities—the Secretary of State's bogey men. It need not involve any additional resources in its operation. Its effect is simply to allow local authorities a limited discretion to ask a question and seek to foster good practice in place of the blanket prohibition currently contained in the Bill.
Let me go back to what this is all about. Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which the Government are seeking to reject, amend clause 17 and add a new clause. Let me remind the House why clause 17 was put in the Bill in the first place. We are here to try to stop the Government taking it out on the disabled. The original notes on clauses stated:
The purpose of clause 17 is to prevent local authorities and the other specified public bodies discriminating against particular contractors by introducing political or irrelevant considerations into the contractual process.
The notes on clauses list most of the things that should not be covered by the clause so that local authorities cannot get involved. The Government particularly highlighted the fact that local authorities should not ask about rates of pay, numbers of apprentices, work on nuclear missile sites, lorries crossing picket lines, links with South Africa and freemasonry. There is no mention whatever of banning local authorities from asking about the disabled employed by contractors. To seek now to lump in the disabled — that is what the Secretary of State is now trying to do—is a thundering disgrace and the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
The issue is not central to the Government's economic policy, yet not a single Conservative Member of Parliament today has had the guts to come to the Chamber to support what the Government are doing with his or her voice, despite a three-line Whip. The Secretary of State is alone. Most of his hon. Friends, who have not heard the debate and are ignorant about the issues, will be shepherded in by the Whips to vote against the disabled at the end of the debate. That is not democracy. My hon. Friends do not have to be Whipped on a matter such as this.
Two of the three Conservative Members who have spoken gave the impression that they would support the Lords amendments in the Lobby. Certainly the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave every impression of doing so. However, I was not clear whether, as he sat down, he was saying that he would abstain.

Mr. Hannam: What I said was that I could not support their rejection.

Mr. Rooker: I thought so—another abstainer Why on earth are Tories abstaining when they speak as they do? The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would not support the Government and that he stood by the all-party group in the belief that the Lords were right in putting the clause in the Bill.
6.15 pm
If the hon. Gentleman comes into the Lobby with the Welsh Nationalists, Liberals and Labour Members of Parliament, and, indeed, with at least one Conservative Member who is sitting behind, him, he will not be alone. [Interruption.] Have I got that wrong as well? I have got it all wrong. Not one Conservative Member of Parliament has had the guts to come in the Chamber and speak in favour of what the Secretary of State is doing. Three of them have come in with their bleeding hearts on their arms, but have not had the guts to support the Lords in what they have done. It is important that that should be on the record. They are only prepared to abstain.
This is a modest clause. I do not have to deploy the case of modesty too much because the clause has no teeth. No contractor or local authority need worry about it. But it is important that both Houses of Parliament should send out a signal, and we should send a signal to their Lordships that if the Government get their way the Lords should not lie down and accept it. They should have the guts to insist on their amendment and send it back to this place.
In addition, the House of Commons should send a signal to employers that Parliament will not tolerate continued discrimination in employment practices in so far as they affect disabled people. I do not propose to read out the list, but the Secretary of Slate's claims simply do not stand up to examination. Able-bodied applicants are at least 1.6 times more likely to receive a positive response from an employer than a disabled person, and the proportion of companies employing 3 per cent. or more registered disabled — their legal quota under the 1944 legislation—has fallen from 53 per cent. in 1965 to only 27 per cent. last year. Therefore, we must send a signal to employers and, even more importantly, to disabled people. We have a bounden duty to do so. All I am asking hon. Members to do is simply to assist us tonight in sending those signals.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 208.

Division No. 206]
[6.17 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Benyon, W.
Buck, Sir Antony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Budgen, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Burns, Simon






Butler, Chris
 Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clark. Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gardiner, George
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Paice, James


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David





Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Squire, Robin


Rathbone, Tim
Stern, Michael


Renton, Tim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Rhodes James, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stokes, John


Riddick, Graham
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashdown, Paddy
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kennedy, Charles
Reid, Dr John


Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


McTaggart, Bob
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wall, Pat


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morley, Elliott
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mrs. Llin Golding and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Tony Banks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.

Clause 19

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO OR CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 17

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 18, line 28, after "1972" insert
or in relation to Scotland section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is a straightforward drafting amendment to include reference to Scottish legislation, and should have been

included from the outset. The provisions of section 58 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 are, so far as relevant here, the same in effect as those of section 101 of the 1972 Act, and the same provision should be made in respect of arrangements made under section 56 as are made in respect of section 101.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28

PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY BY TEACHING OR BY PUBLISHING MATERIAL.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 28, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality

Read a Second time.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move amendment (e) to the Lords amendment, at end add
'other than by any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment (f) to the Lords amendment, at end add
'except that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the provision of any service by a local authority to any person where that provision is necessary in the view of the authority for a purpose other than that prohibited by this subsection.'

Dr. Cunningham: Welcome though the Lords amendments are, frankly, they are simply not good enough to satisfy our remaining fundamental objections to the clause.
Before I refer to the amendments in detail, I reiterate our view of the major issues that are involved in this clause. The clause affects all local government, all education services, and the arts and library services of our country. It has caused a storm of protest, and understandably so. Here we are dealing with fundamental issues of principle. It is not just a provision to ensure neutrality on homosexuality. Much more than that is at stake. Indeed, everyone's right to information and the arts, the rights of minorities, the way in which a free society is tolerant of diversity, the way in which a free society organises itself, the way in which minorities are protected' in a free and plural democratic society are at the heart of our objections to the provisions of clause 28.
We are confronted here with issues of people's civil rights and individual freedoms. We are confronted here with the possibility of an extension of censorship, either deliberately or by default. That is why the Arts Council of Great Britain has been so active in opposing the provisions of the clause, arguing, as we do, the severe risk that prohibition on "promoting" homosexuality will prohibit almost any literary or artistic activity that has an element of homosexuality within it.
The provisions set a dangerous precedent. The clause represents a new and inherently dangerous direction for the law to take. It breaches an important principle of equality before the law, for minorities to seek to advance their own lawful interests, that could in future be extended to other people.
Whatever the Minister says about our amendments and the issues, I hope that he will give the House an assurance, a promise on the record, that the provisions will not be


extended to other public bodies and activities — for example, broadcasting and the Arts Council — which could in future be prohibited on much the same grounds and arguments that could lead to further censorship. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention to go further in that direction.
The proposals set a dangerous precedent, because they seek to control what is taught in the classroom, not directly through an education Act, but indirectly by restrictions on the provision of books or other materials that are not themselves prohibited by law. The proposals will encourage discrimination. It is impossible to accept any other construction when the civil rights of homosexuals are already under increased threat and hostility because of the appalling consequences of AIDS. We and many other organisations, including the National Council for Civil Liberties, believe that there is an even greater need to educate and inform and to protect people's equal rights. Whatever is the intention of the supporters of the clause, its impact can only be regressive. Local authorities will have to play safe. They may have to refuse to take any risk in an area that may appear to assist homosexual people, or possibly show them in a favourable light.
The proposals provide an excuse to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Just as the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and the Race Relations Act 1976 make it less acceptable to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities, this clause will have the reverse effect and will make it more respectable to discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
These are major and fundamental reasons why further amendments to the clause are necessary. As it stands, it will be bad law, because it is dangerously imprecise in drafting and open to wide and varied, differing interpretation. Take the key words — "promote", "homosexuality" and "acceptability". None of them is defined. As they stand in the Bill at present, they have no fixed meaning. Organisations outside the House and, for that matter, my hon. Friends, others and I have legal opinions almost by the dozen from senior counsel, saying that anything that is published or done in respect of homosexuality could be said to promote it. We need look no further than those legal opinions for reasons why the House should not accept the clause as it stands. The Government amendments to the local authorities' intention do not substantially alter the impact of the clause. It is still dependent upon how the word "promote" is interpreted.
The Government opposed a similar clause in 1986. There has been no explanation from Ministers of why, one year later, they have changed their minds on this matter. There has been no explanation, no argument and no evidence for the about-face by Ministers. There has been no attempt to answer those questions. The Government opposed identical proposals in 1986 specifically because Ministers argued that those proposals were open to harmful misinterpretation. The Government were saying that a year ago. We said it too, but we are saying the same thing now. Why have the Government changed their position?
I believe that they have done so for the basest and most contemptible political motives. I believe that they have done so because they seek some political gain from aiding

and abetting bigotry and discrimination against gay and lesbian people. In the absence of any other explanation, that is bound to be the conclusion that people will reach, inside and outside the House. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way to him or to his hon. Friend who is making so much noise from a sedentary position, but does not have the guts to stand up and say publicly what he is muttering in private.

Mr. Tony Marlow: What the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is saying is totally contemptible to democracy. He is saying that the Government should not pay the slightest bit of attention to popular feeling on this issue and that, in his opinion, the population at large is bigoted. I should like him to withdraw that.

Dr. Cunningham: I said no such thing. I was saying that the Government were bigoted and were seeking to encourage bigotry—which, unlike the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I do not believe is a trait displayed by the majority of people in Britain. On the contrary, I think that the majority of people are decent and civilised in their approach to these matters, as we ought to be in any plural democratic society.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman expressed an attitude of principle. He identified what he calls gay and lesbian people, but he must do the House the duty of saying to what extent he regards perversion in any psychopathological form as wrong. There is no question at all that homosexuality in either sex is psychopathological perversion.

Dr. Cunningham: Many people, in particular homosexual people, will find the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) deeply offensive. Apparently, he fails to recognise the reality of different people's sexual orientation. His intervention shows that he is portraying the very characteristic about which I was complaining among Ministers. He is showing a form of bigotry about these issues which has no place in our debates.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is honourable that the hon. Gentleman has given way again, but it is not simply a question of different orientation. Sadism and masochism are not just orientations of human conduct; they are psychopathological manifestations of morbid conduct—and homosexuality is the same.

Dr. Cunningham: I regret having given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman again. He has just repeated something which I think is totally unacceptable and, frankly, also wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman talked about the Government changing their mind. Will he help the House by explaining why he supported what was then clause 27 in Standing Committee? He said:
I shall vote for the amendment and I hope and expect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.
In regard to the ban on the promotion of homosexuality he said:
We do not wish to change that in any way, shape or form.

Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) were to read all of what I said, he would see that I went on to say:
it is not, and never has been,
nor do we expect or want it to be
the duty … of any local authority to promote homosexuality."ߞ [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1211–14.]
No one is asking for that. Gay and lesbian people do not want that.
Since the hon. Gentleman was talking about the record, perhaps he will also acknowledge, as I am sure he knows, that I said in Committee on behalf of my hon. Friends in response to something produced at a very short notice in the Committee that we were fundamentally opposed to some of the provisions of this clause and we would seek to amend it drastically on Report.
That is what we tried to do, with the greatest support from outside the House. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends voted down those very wide-ranging amendments. We are now presenting the House with yet another opportunity to do exactly that today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having reflected on it, will take a different view now from the one that he took at the time.
We oppose the proposals because the prohibition on promoting homosexuality covers any and every activity in which a local authority engages in furtherance of its duties and responsibilities.
It is not an abuse for local authorities to recognise the existence of a minority in their communities. Estimates suggest that 10 per cent. of the adult population in Britain may be gay or lesbian people. It is not an abuse for a local authority to devote — as some do quite properly — relatively small resource allocations to meet the legitimate needs of those minorities. That is not an abuse. It is a perfectly proper thing for local authorities to do, and should be acceptable in a civilised society.
As we have argued before, the teaching of children in school and other places of education also could be adversely affected by the proposals, as could essential activities such as the counselling of young people because of their own sexuality or that of their parents.
Amendment No. 10 was said to be moved by the Government in the other place to clarify the Government's position on what was meant by "intentionally promoting homosexuality", although, as I have argued, the meaning of those words is still unclear. The amendment introduces some limitation, however minor, on the concept. As I said, we certainly will not oppose it, but it simply does not go far enough. Other Government amendments accepted in the other place make explicit reference in subsection (1)(b) to the publication of material, and further reference to "financial or other assistance" for the purposes of promotion are welcome in so far as they go, but they do not remove the fundamental objections.
Amendment No. 12 is simply a declarity, in that it states that a court shall draw such inferences from evidence before it as it sees fit. That does not seem to move the debate on at all.
The amendments tabled in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition deal with the issues of civil rights and the provision of services for a purpose other than the promotion of homosexuality. I am grateful that they have been selected for debate.
I do not want to be too unkind to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) as we are probably speaking on the same side of the argument—[Interruption.] Well, I welcome the fact that we are on the same side on an important issue of civil liberties. I suppose that he must somewhat regret his comments that were published in The Independent this morning—although perhaps, like me, he was not consulted by the journalist who wrote the article in the first place. However, I am grateful that we are on the same side of the argument in this debate.
The amendment, inserted by the Government on Report in the House of Lords, does not go far enough. Amendment (e) would qualify the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality in relation to
any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person.
It is an important amendment, pointing to a serious practical difficulty which has still not been resolved either by the Government or by the House of Lords.
Amendment (f), which is also tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, goes even further. It would deal directly with the question of a service provided for a purpose other than "the promotion of homosexuality", which, under the clause, would risk falling within the prohibition. The amendment provides that where a service is provided for another purpose and where the provision is necessary to meet a need within the community, it should fall outside the terms of reference of the clause.
The amendment seeks to highlight the areas of activity that are undertaken as part of a council's provision which might be thought to have an indirect consequence in the terms of the clause. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northampton, North is muttering again. I hope that he will participate in the debate and put his views on the record. I am trying to explain to him the purpose of our amendments. If he has something to say, I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that the Government, at least privately—they do not have the courage to say so publicly—must be deeply regretting ever having given way to the pressures to embark on this legislation in the first place. There have been many debates in both Houses, and debates and demonstrations around the country, illustrating not only the depth of opposition to this proposal, but the deep concern that is felt by many people in all walks of life, including people way beyond the boundaries of the Labour party or, indeed, any other political party.
I make it clear that we do not support the intentions of the clause. The motives and implications behind it are deeply to be deplored. It should not be accepted by Parliament. I make it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would not allow the implications and provisions of the clause to remain on the statute book.

Mr. Robin Squire: I have listened to our previous debates in the Chamber and suspect that I have read as widely as any hon. Member on this issue both since and during our proceedings. I did not support the clause originally and all that I have subsequently seen has not ultimately persuaded me to change my mind. Amendments (e) and (f) that were moved earlier, by the hon. Member deserve support.
I begin on a point on which I hope that I can unite hon. Members. I recognise, as I think do all hon. Members, the


importance of protecting our children from evil influences, however defined. I speak as someone who has two teenage children of my own, so I have a little knowledge of what is involved. However, the permutations of wording through which this House and the other place have gone have not persuaded me that we have either justified the need for the clause or that the wording that we have produced is other than a minefield, awaiting exploitation by scores of lawyers in years to come. I do not know whether "promotion" means "talking about", or "selling the advantages of", to take but two possible interpretations. Undoubtedly, hon. Members could provide many more.
I speak as one of the honorary vice-presidents of the Conservative group for homosexual equality. We want to put forward four brief points. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government cannot answer them during the debate, he will at least take account of them. They relate to the question, "What is 'promoting homosexuality'?" First, if a local authority assisted a well-run counselling service to help homosexuals to come to terms with their sexuality and to cope with the consequences that many experience, is that "promoting homosexuality"? Secondly, if a local authority allowed a homosexual organisation to hire a room in one of its buildings for a public meeting on the same terms as any other organisation — I am referring to law-abiding citizens—is that "promoting homosexuality"? Thirdly, if a local authority bought for its public libraries books that discussed homosexual love favourably or presented sympathetically the lives of homosexuals such as the late Lord Britten and Sir Peter Pears, is that "promoting homosexuality"? Fourthly, if sex education classes presented homosexuality in a balanced way, as required by the Department of Education and Science under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, is that "promoting homosexuality"?

Mr. Marlow: Yes.

Mr. Squire: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says "yes", and in that case we have a slight problem of conflict with the law.
I have mentioned that I have two children. I happen to think that the teaching of sexuality of any sort does not belong in school. I believe that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made some comment to that effect in our earlier exchange. I agree completely that school is not the place for that sort of thing. However, it is the place for teaching an honest and balanced approach to this subject just as to any other.
In one of our national newspapers today—the most well-read one—there is a cartoon portraying a middle-aged man retiring through the front door of his house, leaving his son, who is drawn effeminately, hanging by a rope from a lamp post, having clearly been hanged or attempted to be hanged. I put to one side those people who may find the subject funny — presumably that is why they drew a cartoon—because that is not the point that I want to make. In my constituency, I probably have a substantial minority of law-abiding, God-fearing Roman Catholics—I suspect a proportion similar to the number of homosexuals and lesbians—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Squire: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my point.
If it were suggested that a cartoon be drawn, portraying either some militant Protestant group stringing up some Roman Catholic, or the other way round — some Roman Catholic stringing up an identified Protestant—we would be outraged and would raise that issue on the Floor of the House saying, "This is disgraceful." As a further example—again it is an obvious one—if we were even contemplating similar action from somebody of one colour against somebody of another colour, who is another law-abiding citizen we would again be horrified. The person responsible would be in breach of the law, as I understand it, because they would be accused of inciting racial prejudice. I remind hon. Members that we are talking about a law-abiding minority.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the cartoon by Franklin in The Sun and which I have referred to the Press Council. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a parallel with that cartoon, I suggest he looks at Der Angrif—a German newspaper that was produced by Julius Streicher, the Jew-baiter, in Nazi Germany. I believe that Franklin bases his cartooning models upon that newspaper.

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.

7 pm

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I go along with what my hon. Friend says and I share his disgust at the cartoon in The Sun. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason for such a cartoon appearing in a national newspaper, which is read by millions, is the aggressive proselytising by some local authorities on behalf of homosexuals? That has tended to disgust the vast majority of British people.

Mr. Squire: I appreciate that my hon. Friend's concern is shared by several of my colleagues and it is important. However, in our discussions on this matter and in our attempts to extract evidence, it appears that most of that evidence arises from one book, in one teacher centre, in one school under one authority. I may be wrong, but I have seen no other evidence. Indeed, as I understand it, that book was kept to help teachers who are occasionally asked to advise pupils who come from homes with gay parents. It is important to realise that we do not live in a world where every child lives with a male and female parent.

Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has asked for examples and perhaps I can assist. I have in my hand a leaflet that was handed out to 15-year-olds at a Bristol school. I will not read out the details of that leaflet because I do not think that I should—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Opposition Members may want that, but suffice to say that the leaflet describes and illustrates homosexual activity and underneath that description says:
Go for it! Share the pleasure with a friend.
That was handed out to 15-year-olds at a school in Bristol—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] The Terrence Higgins trust.

Mr. Squire: I can only take at face value what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, it is deplorable and despicable that such leaflets exist and I would be happy to add it to my list of one. From a brief glance at that leaflet I cannot


believe that it has been produced by or on behalf of a local authority. I shall pass it over to the hon. Member for Copeland and I will happily give way if he can tell me who is credited with producing it.

Dame Jill Knight: I am concerned that it appears that my hon. Friend has not read any of the debates that have previously taken place. For instance, on 11 January the debate in the other place drew attention to the fact that children under two have had access to gay and lesbian books in Lambeth play centres.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is not true.

Mr. John Fraser: That is a lie.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Dame Jill Knight: I am not telling lies and I do not believe that it is the practice in this House for one who has intervened to give way again. I am quoting from the House of Lords debate�ž

Mr. Tony Banks: That does not make it true!

Dame Jill Knight: The person in charge, Mrs. Jill Delaney, playleader of the Windmill gardens play centre, said:
We have been on training courses where members have access to take this kind of literature into the playgroups but nearly everyone refused. Some of the books on display were terrible. I have children in here as young as 2 years old and I don't think they should be seeing pictures of grown men in the nude in different sexual practices." [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 1988; Vol. 491, c. 10131]

Mr. Squire: I cannot respond to that specific point because I do not come from Lambeth and I have not seen the literature about which my hon. Friend complains.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend not know of such literature?

Mr. Squire: I am quite prepared to admit�ž

Dr. Cunningham: rose�ž

Mr. Squire: There is a queue forming.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), I understand that that charge has been denied in more than one quarter. However, I must leave it to other hon. Members who come from that area to confirm or deny that charge. If my hon. Friend is correct, I share her unease that such literature is available to young children. I recognise the importance of protecting young children and the need to do so.
Tonight we are trying to establish the need for the clause as drafted and to what extent the wording of the clause may influence other perfectly normal law-abiding citizens.

Dr. Cunningham: I believe that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) should get his facts right. There is no information on the leaflet that he brandished as to who was responsible for its publication or distribution. I believe that the hon. Gentleman should be more accurate and precise in his allegations regarding such sensitive matters.

Mr. Squire: I almost feel that there are two debates going on and I apologise to the extent that I have caused that.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Squire: I am anxious to make some progress because I am aware that a number of other hon. Members wish to take part.

Mr. Fraser: It is specifically about Lambeth.

Mr. Squire: Very well.

Mr. Fraser: I represent Lambeth and my wife is a nursery nurse in the borough. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support the monstrous allegation that has been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who, presumably, is strongly in favour of the promotion of heterosexuality, adultery, troilism arid all the rest of it as opposed to the promotion of homosexuality, about which she is extremely economic with the truth.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Squire: I must press on. I am satisfied that there has been some balance put forward for the Lambeth subculture.
Over the years there has been considerable scientific discussion about the extent to which people can be persuaded to adopt a sexuality that is not their own. In the overwhelming majority of cases it seems that people are born with a particular sexual preference or acquire it during the passage of their lives without the presence of the influences we are discussing. There are many famous examples in history of people who became homosexuals without the benefit of a gay counselling group �ž we would be foolish to assume that such groups are an absolute essential.
As I have said, I have two teenage children and my wife is a former teacher. In her experience, the suggestion that one can address an average or even below average group of teenagers seeking to proselytise and expect to be heard sympathetically is unrealistic.
There has been much overstatement from both sides about the effect of the clause. It has been suggested that some great works of art, great books and great plays that have been performed for scores of years �ž including during the time when homosexuality was illegal �ž are threatened. I doubt that. However, it is possible that the clause as drawn, even with the beneficial effects of amendments (e) and (f), will be taken as some sort of signal by a large number of people that society is becoming more intolerant. I remind the House for the last time that we are talking about a law-abiding minority of people. If people break the law, they must be punished through all the avenues available. I do not wish to see my children threatened by sexual or other aggression, but I want to keep a sense of perspective and I very much fear that the clause goes much further than was ever intended.

Mr. Chris Smith: Three months ago I rose to express my distress and disquiet at the sudden appearance of what was then clause 27 of the Local Government Bill. I had hoped that in the intervening months a degree of common sense and decency might have crept into the Government's thinking and that we might now be applauding their decision to withdraw the clause in its entirety from the Bill and to reject everything that it stands for. Sadly, that is not the case. At the Government's behest, their Lordships have made two changes to the clause. Lords amendment No. 11 brings a marginal improvement. Lords amendment No. 12 inserts the idea of intentionality�žof itself not an objectionable


move, but, when qualified with such a sweeping catch-all definition of intention, leaving interpretation totally to the courts, it does nothing to allay the genuine fears that the clause has aroused throughout the country.
The amendments have left untouched the central flaw at the heart of the clause — the undefined, hopelessly vague and dangerously widely interpretable word "promote". The amendments in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends attempt to circumscribe that word to a certain extent. That is why I support them. If the amendments tabled by the Liberal party are put to the vote, I shall not support them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not selected."] I am pleased to hear it, because they would have made matters worse.
Three months ago I asked what on earth the originators of the clause meant by the word "promote". After three months of debate and discussion in this Chamber, in the other place, on the radio and television and on platforms up and down the country, that question still remains unanswered. All that we had in the intervening period were statements such as, "Well, we all know what we mean by 'promote', don't we?" or, "We all know that boroughs like Haringey are up to no good," or, "Of course, there will be no threat to sensible acceptable activities conducted by local authorities." None of those statements represents an accurate analysis of what the word "promote" can be interpreted as meaning by the courts. It is not good enough for the Minister to write to me, as he generously did after the debate before Christmas, to say that in his view none of the activities that I had listed as potentially unlawful under the clause would be caught by it. It is not up to the Minister to interpret what the word "promote" means; it is up to the courts.
After reading through many pages of the House of Lords Hansard, the only attempt at a definition that I could find — in all the many hours of debate — came from the Earl of Caithness, who is the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water. He referred to local authorities that have in the recent past promoted homosexuality—
that is, giving it a standing over and above the standing that is given to similar matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1988; Vol. 492, c. 937.]
If I were in the business of writing a dictionary, I would certainly not go to the noble Lord for clarity of definition. Such an attempt to define what the word "promote" means takes us no further.
7.15 pm
Because of that lack of definition, the central problem remains. The clause will potentially affect any service provided by any local authority for, or on behalf of, or in support of, gays and lesbians in that local authority's area. Let me take just two examples to illustrate my point. First, let us suppose that a teenager begins to discover that he is gay. He feels nervous, upset and isolated. He may be on the verge of contemplating suicide, as the studies suggest many such young people are. Because he would find it difficult to turn to anyone else, he turns to a teacher at his school. He asks, "What on earth is all this about?" In such circumstances, any teacher worth his salt would sit the pupil down and say, "Look, there is nothing at all to be worried about. This is perfectly acceptable. There are millions of people who are gay and they make a valuable

contribution to society. There is no reason for you to feel isolated or abnormal about what you are and what you are feeling."
That teacher would attempt to advise and counsel and make the teenager feel better about himself and about what he was coming to understand about himself. Would such a teacher be in contravention of the clause? As I understand the clause — certainly as I understand the wishes of those who brought the clause forward—such a teacher would, indeed, be contravening the clause. That means that the important advice and counselling that ought to be available to that very concerned, very scared, teenager will not be available to him. That worries me deeply.
My second example relates to a local authority-owned art gallery wishing to sponsor an exhibition of paintings by David Hockney. I choose the painter advisedly because of what he has said forcefully in recent days. The local authority will fear that it risks being in contravention of clause 28, not simply because David Hockney happens to be gay, but because David Hockney's paintings frequently celebrate the fact that he is gay. That is the key point that will concern a local authority when it is considering whether to mount an exhibition of paintings by one of Britain's greatest artists. I believe that the way in which the clause will be interpreted moves us a step closer to censorship of the arts because that is how it is likely to affect local authorities. I have given just two of many examples.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: For many years we have had a law—in statute, and before that in common law—against indecent displays and obscenity. The hon. Gentleman will know that a great many art galleries in this country contain classical paintings of great distinction depicting scenes of sexual violence and what many people might call depravity. Does he know of any prosecutions—under common law or statute law—that have taken place for contraventions of that law?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes two mistakes. The first mistake is that the law on matters that are obscene and indecent specifically includes artistic and literary merit as a defence in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. There is no such defence in clauses 28 and 29. Lord Boyd-Carpenter explicitly stated in another place that the artistic element would not be a defence if a prosecution were brought under this clause if it continues to be part of the Bill and if the Bill is enacted.
The hon. Gentleman's second mistake is that exhibitions of paintings of the sort that I have described might conceivably be prosecutable under the 1959 Act. That measure can be used to bring prosecutions for matters that are obscene and indecent. If the hon. Gentleman is supporting the clause and its inclusion in our body of law, he is wishing to tighten the law on obscenity further to restrict the definition of obscene and indecent. I suggest that this is the wrong place to do that. If he is taking that approach, he is adopting the wrong course.
I have given two examples of the practical, potential implications of the clause. In many ways it will make life worse for teachers, administrators, pupils, artists and librarians. It will have that effect on hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens. It will make life richer for some lawyers and a handful of bigots who want to use the


law to their own advantage. To such depths, in the desire of populist advantage, is it sought to drag the Government, a Government who should know better.
More enraging and distressing by far than the practical implications of the clause are the motives that underly it. These motives have not been changed one bit by the amendments that have been tabled in the other place. They remain profoundly undemocratic, anti-libertarian and destructive of all the traditions of tolerance for which this country used to stand.
The proponents of the clause have been saying persistently throughout the country that there is only one form of relationship, one form of sexuality and one form of lifestyle that is acceptable. That form of sexuality will be endorsed, approved, applauded and given enhanced legal status, and everything else will become second-class. It is a view which refuses to recognise the difference, the diversity and the very richness of human life and human society. It is intolerant, immature and undemocratic, and I venture to assert that it is profoundly immoral.
William Shakespeare wrote a major speech as part of a collaborative play about the life of Sir Thomas More. In that play, the king sent out. Sir Thomas More to meet the mob that wishes to drive out the strangers from its midst—the immigrants, the black people, the gays and the lesbians. Sir Thomas More goes out to meet the crowd. He tries to persuade it that it is wrong to drive out strangers and that it might not be in its interests to do so. Shakespeare has Sir Thomas More saying:
Graunt them remoued, and graunt that this your noyce
Hath chidd downe all the maiestic of Ingland;
Ymagin that you see the wretched straingers,
Their babyes at their backes and their poor lugage,
Plodding tooth ports and costes for transportacion,
Aud that you sytt as kinges in your desyres,
Aucthoryty quyte sylenct by your braule,
And you in ruff of your opynions clothd;
What had you gott? Ile tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand shoold preuayle,
How ordere shoold be quelld; and by this patterne
Not on of you shoold lyue an aged man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With sealf same hand, sealf reasons, and sealf right,
Woold shark on you, and men lyke rauenous fishes
Woold feed on on another.
That is the sort of society that I do not wish to see in this country. It is the sort of society that the progenitors of the clause will bring about. It is a society in which there is one form of acceptable existence, a society in which everything else is second-rate and second-class.
I said three months ago that true morality and true decency mean accepting and celebrating diversity and being tolerant of the fact that everyone, no matter who or what he is, is entitled to live and lead his own life. That is what I shall continue to stand for in the House. I dearly hope that the House will reject the clause and support at the very least the amendments that stand in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems sensible and for the benefit of the House if I allow the debate on the amendment to touch upon matters that are covered by other Lords amendments. I remind the House, however, that we are not debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Fairbairn: If I may say so, I do not think that the clause will enrich lawyers. There is one fundamental matter that the House should understand and say. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said, homosexuality is not one of the paths of sexual expression which diversify and enrich human experience. In male homosexuality — homos in Greek meaning "the same" and homo in Latin meaning "man" — there is a perversion of a human function. It is using the excretory anus and rectum with a reproductive organ. That might in itself give us pause, but anyone who comprehends the deep libidinal and psychological orgins of male and female homosexuality should understand that it is a major and unnatural perversion.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall give way in a moment.
There are other perversions. As a lawyer who has practised at the criminal Bar, I have met many psychopaths. I have met also many bank robbers. I have met people with all sorts of perversion, who decide either to indulge in them or to refrain from them. It is ill in a debate on the education of children that the concept of the indulgence of deeply seated character perversions should be regarded as a mere alternative. If it is a mere alternative, aggression and sadism are merely parts of the diversity of human experience.
To take up the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, let us consider the small child who goes to his teacher and says, "I have an urge to shoplift. I feel isolated because people tell me that there is something abnormal and wrong about shoplifting." The teacher says, "You must not feel isolated, dear boy. It is just another manifestation of the glorious diversity of human behaviour. So be at home and worry not. There is no morality." I have not heard the words "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" in the speeches of those who object to the promotion that is to be forbidden under the clause.

Mr. Holland: The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about corruption of the young. He has quoted Greek and has challenged whether things are right or wrong. Does he think that it was right that Socrates should have been prosecuted for corrupting the young? Does he also think it right that hemlock should have been the punishment?

Mr. Fairbairn: That leads me to a very different matter.

Mr. Holland: Yes or no?

Mr. Fairbairn: It is not a question of yes or no. It is a question of yes or no that Socrates, in corrupting the young, was guilty of a criminal offence. Eventually, the glories of Greece and Athens and their philosophy were smothered and corrupted by the very matter which he spread, as indeed Rome was as well. I do not want to take as long as Gibbon took to write "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
Let us be clear about this. Leonardo da Vinci was a homosexual. So was Peter Pears. The fact that a person has this morbid squint is not a reason to condemn him for all else that he does. In wartime, lots of people indulge instincts of aggression and sadism which they keep in


control if they are not given the opportunity to exercise them. I have appeared in capital cases for many people who failed to keep those sentiments in check. But that is not an alternative of the diversity of the expression of psychosexual activity which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) may laugh, but he should understand what motivates people who want to shoot, kill, stab, hit children or be aggressive. [Interruption] Opposition Members may laugh but a simple message should go out from the House. Sodomy and buggery are not natural alternative sexual acts. They are perversions. They result from deep-seated psychopathological perversion. The House should not be seen to say that it is as right to be wrong as it is wrong to be right.

Mr. Tony Benn: I would not like to follow the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) too far, but I can think of nothing more psychopathologically sick than to devote one's life to the pursuit of those who follow practices which the hon. and learned Gentleman finds undesirable and to incite the public to hate them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not a psychiatrist and neither am I. The only reading which I can make of his speech is that he has revealed what many people would regard as a genuine sickness which could do damage to others.
I have never spoken before in the House on this subject, but I am moved to do so by growing alarm at the effect that the clause would have upon millions of people and not only upon those who are gay or lesbian, for their relatives have a concern for them and know that this campaign has been whipped up by the gutter press which has done more to lower the standard of personal and public morality than any others in modern British society.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and I am not, but I think that the cartoon in The Sun today is an incitement to violence, if not to murder. Those who advocate policies which have that consequence, in collaboration with proprietors who believe that they can increase their circulation by conducting those campaigns, share the moral responsibility for what will flow from them.

Mr. Fairbairn: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Let us take many people in history. Let us take Oscar Wilde, one of our greatest playwrights and one of the greatest users of the English language. Let us take Lawrence of Arabia. Many people are homosexual. That is absolutely no criticism of them as people. We are not discussing that. What we are discussing is whether or not a local authority should try to persuade people that if they are homosexual they might be Oscar Wilde.

Mr. Benn: When the hon. and learned Gentleman reads his speech, I think he will realise that each intervention makes it worse. If it is wrong for local authorities to promote homosexuality, why is it not wrong for anyone to promote it?
I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). If local authorities cannot do something which will be covered by the clause, the next stage will be that no one can. Every leaflet, every pamphlet, every play and every book would be considered

on the basis of whether it put forward a psychopathological condition if we accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.
I believe that the pursuit of people who are gay and lesbian is as morbid as could be imagined. It is one thing for the popular press, the sewer press, to pursue such a campaign, but for a Government who have responsibility for the education of children to adopt that campaign and to make it part of the statute of the land can only be interpreted as the crudest opportunism for political purposes. That is my conviction. The effect of it is to scapegoat gays and lesbians. Whatever may be said in the House by Ministers, the courts will not take into account assurances by Ministers. The courts take account only of the wording of legislation.
This is the most blatantly and dishonestly worded clause that I have ever come across. I shall tell the House why. If the sense of the word "promote" can be read across from "describe", every murder play promotes murder, every war play promotes war, every drama involving the eternal triangle promotes adultery; and Mr. Richard Branson's condom campaign promotes fornication. The House had better be very careful before it gives to judges, who come from a narrow section of society, the power to interpret "promote".
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross used vivid language, which no doubt will guarantee him a place in The Sun tomorrow. [Interruption.] Of course it will; he knows it well. He is expert at getting himself into the newspapers on sexual matters. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that some of the most horrific sexual crimes are crimes within a heterosexual context. That is so with many rapes and much mutilation, which is promoted in videos and films. These show the crime of one person against another, not the love of one person for another.
To identify homosexual and gay relationships specially as contributing to crime is to fly in the face of all the evidence that as there is more heterosexual sexual activity, more crime is associated with it than with gay and lesbian relationships.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Benn: I will give way, but I do not want to detain the House.

Mr. Fairbairn: a: I did not suggest that homosexuality produced crime. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said that I am good at getting into the papers on sexual matters, will he be good enough to tell me Fiona Fullerton's telephone number?

Mr. Benn: Since the clause first appeared, I have received many letters from people who are gays and lesbians who are in genuine fear for their safety and for their lives. Any hon. Member who is interested in civil liberties will be aware that the harassment of gays and lesbians, first initiated by the sewer press and now by the clause for which the Government are responsible, is a major problem. People are afraid of the legislation and of the effect of the Government's endorsement of this scapegoating.
I wondered how I could best contribute to the debate and give my testimony against the clause. I have decided to read to the House in full the resolution on lesbian and gay rights carried by the Labour party conference two and a half years ago. I have sent copies of this resolution to the


people who wrote to me. I want to read it out and put on the record the resolution that was passed at the Labour party conference by a majority of more than half a million. The resolution states:
This Conference opposes all discrimination against lesbians and gay men and recognises that this discrimination is institutionalised in society. Conference notes that existing Labour Party policy with regard to homosexuality fails to meet the legitimate demands of lesbians and gay men and that a consistent and principled campaign conducted over a number of years is necessary to reverse that failure. Conference therefore:
(1) instructs the NEC to draft a lesbian and gay rights policy which would specifically:

(a) declare that lesbian and gay relationships and acts are not contrary to the public policy of the law and that judges must not use their discretion under Common Law to invent new and discriminatory offences;
(b) repeal all criminal laws which discriminate against lesbians and gay men, and clarify and codify those sections of the Common Law which deal with public morality;
(c) in this clarification they should be guided by the maxim that there should be no crimes without victims;
(d) prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gay men in child custody cases;
(e) prohibit discrimination and unfair dismissals on grounds in any way connected with lesbian and gay sexuality or life-style;
(f) prevent police harassment of lesbians and gay men.

(2) Calls upon "—
this is relevant to the Bill—
all Labour local authorities to adopt practices and policy to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gay men, and in particular:

(a) adopt and enforce equal opportunities in relation to lesbians and gay men along the same lines as Islington, Hackney, GLC, Manchester, Brent and Nottingham;
(b) end discrimination against single people and lesbians and gay men in housing policies;
(c) support financially and otherwise special lesbian and gay phone lines, centres and youth groups;
(d) publicise these anti-discrimination policies.

(3) Instructs the NEC to

(a) organise a campaign of education among Labour Party trade union membership on lesbian and gay oppression in conjunction with the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights;
(b) produce a leaflet for public campaign using the slogan 'the Labour Party support lesbian and gay rights—join the Labour Party'.

(4) Instructs the NEC to set up a sub-committee to organise the implementation of this policy.
That resolution was carried under our voting system with 3,395,000 voting for and 2,805,000 voting against. Conservative Members may laugh, but the Labour party conference reaches decisions. It does not simply give ovations to the leader who drafts the policy.
Every Labour Member of Parliament was elected knowing the resolution on lesbian and gay rights reached at the Labour party conference. Tory Members, the artificial psychiatrists and people with prejudices can laugh as much as they like. The day will come when people will look back on this debate and be glad that there were hon. Members on both sides of the House who stood against what is an incitement to harass decent people, who, in the course of their orientation, have adopted gay and lesbian practices which are not contrary to the law of the land.
I wanted to put that testimony into Hansard because people are frightened by what is happening. They want to

know that there are people in this House who believe that the policy is wrong, is motivated wrongly, is drafted wrongly and is designed to gain political advantage out of scapegoating a minority who should be left to enjoy their civil liberties.

Dame Jill Knight: Having listened with fascination to all that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has read out, I must say that there is nothing in the resolution which states that the Labour party believes that children in schools should have the homosexual lifestyle thrust on them as a desirable alternative to normal heterosexual marriage.
The clause is about protecting children. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has just read out. There is no doubt that children have been subjected to a most unhappy, unfair and wrong promotion campaign to try to turn them into supporters of homosexuality.
If anyone doubts that, why did the children's parents complain? When those parents complained, why were they subjected to such vicious treatment? I cannot think it right—

Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I am in the middle of a sentence.
I cannot think it right that parents who complained about what was being done to their children at school should have been kicked and spat upon. If their children had not been treated in the way that I have described, the parents would not have complained.
One of the things that has impressed me—

Mr. Pike: Is it true?

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is true. If it is not true, why did the parents complain? That is the point of the matter.

Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Pike: rose—

Dame Jill Knight: I will give way to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) because he asked me first.

Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Lady produce evidence to support her claim? Does she recognise that the clause goes way beyond the protection of children? Will she also accept that, if the protection of children is the main cause for concern, we must give the same protection to children from the threat from heterosexual abuse, which is far more common and a bigger threat to children than the lesbian or gay threat.

Dame Jill Knight: The clause has nothing to do with criminal abuse. The clause attempts to stop what has been happening to children. The hon. Member for Burnley must understand the point that I have already made twice—if parents did not believe that what was happening was wrong, why did they complain, and complain to some Conservative Members who tried to stand up for their rights?

Ms. Diane Abbott: Where?

Dame Jill Knight: The evidence is clear for anyone who will take the trouble to read the debates in another place and in this place. I am amazed at the deliberate blindness and deafness of Opposition Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Dame Jill Knight: I will not give way. I want to get on; I do not wish to make a long speech.
I have been amazed at the way in which the clause has been interpreted by people outside the House, and astonished at some of the things that have been said this evening. In all fairness, they have only been the same things that have been said by the demonstrators. People are screaming and yelling that books by William Shakespeare will all be banned from libraries. That is ridiculous: nothing in the clause could bring that about.
I wonder why people who say that it is terrible to burn books from a library, or ban them, when they are for adults — I agree with them — have taken no action against the banning of "Thomas the Tank Engine", Enid Blyton, Rupert Bear and Dr. Doolittle. People who say that it is right to ban those books cannot say that they do not agree with any books being banned.

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Dame Jill Knight: I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker has said that he wants all speeches to be short.
I have also been astonished at the degree of viciousness that I have encountered, as one who initiated the clause. My secretary has been abused, and has been the butt of the most appalling campaign of pornographic telephone calls. At 2.20 one morning, she was woken by someone who objected to the clause, and was subjected to a torrent of pornographic abuse. That is not the way to conduct a proper argument, but it tells us quite a lot about the kind of people who have been taking part in the opposition to the clause.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dame Jill Knight: I have not given way so far, and I must not do so now.
I have been strongly supportive of the attempt to protect children, and no amount of abuse—or having my car vandalised, which has also happened—will stop me protecting them, and protecting the family unit. This I shall do, against all opposition. The family unit is under attack: there is no doubt of that.
We have a clear indication of the motivation for what has been going on. Let me read out a short paragraph that encapsulates the effort that has been going into the promotion of homosexuality in schools, and the downgrading of the family unit:
The family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must he eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
That is the sort of motivation that led to the need for this clause.
I strongly support the clause, and oppose the efforts to water it down and to make it possible for our children still to he treated in such a way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the rest of us, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), by seeking election to this place, must expect her views to be held up for public comment and criticism. That is an obligation. A similar obligation, however, should not apply to those who do not seek public office. Nevertheless, they find their views and lifestyles criticised, often in a far

worse way than the hon. Lady or her secretary could ever experience. Let me read from a letter from a constituent that arrived in my office on 5 January:
As a young lesbian of 19 years, I can recall only too well the problems I faced during early adolescence and the prejudice and hysteria I was confronted with when I 'came out' at 15. I was hounded at school; I had people spitting at me, people trying to ride their bikes into me, etc. I never went out as people kept threatening to beat me up. I left home, and came to London when I was 16, but even now my sister is teased and victimised because I am a lesbian. There is no way this should have happened to me, and, what is worse, is that some friends of mine had even worse happen to them. I got off 'lightly'. Measures need to be taken to combat this prejudice, and some local councils had begun to do this within education and by aiding lesbian and gay groups, etc, with money and resources. (Money and resources that as rate-payers we are entitled to.) This education is not promotion of homosexuality, it is only a presentation of it in a fair, unprejudiced way—no one can be turned gay by it, the same way we cannot be taught to be straight. But the word promotion is open to interpretation by the courts and this is very dangerous … Many people are going through what I did and this must be stopped. If this Bill is passed it will be another blow to us and a serious violation of our human rights.
Let me briefly quote from two more letters, sent since our last debate on this subject. One is from a man in north London, who writes:
When I was at secondary school, struggling to come to terms with my sexuality, a few well-chosen and compassionate words from our sex education teacher left a lasting impression upon me; for years it was all I had to cling to whilst all around me gays were jeered in every playground conversation".
The other letter is from a parent of a gay child from Sheffield, written in January this year:
I have a daughter who is gay and I believe suffered unnecessarily from the pretence that such do not exist. I had always thought that what took place between fully consenting adults in private should not be against the law, but I had not expected it to touch my own life at all closely. I lean to the view that homosexuals are born and not made because her upbringing doesn't seem to have been different from that of my three other children all of whom are heterosexual. In passing I note that my other daughter is left-handed and fortunate in having escaped persecution for that.
Arguments are commonly put forward about what happens when someone comes to the conclusion that he or she is homosexual. Let me quote another phrase:
When I was young, I was surrounded by images glamorising heterosexuality and it never made me feel I was heterosexual.
That is testimony to the prejudice, disadvantage and bigotry that we as a country should be trying to reduce and eliminate rather than to increase it. The inevitable consequence of the Bill which has had a timely representation by the cartoon already described will be to fan into greater bigotry those who already have latent prejudice.
As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, we challenged the Secretary of State in the House at the end of last year about what Ministers had said a year before. I could quote their speeches. They said that the Government did not believe that the enforcement measures contained in a predecessor Bill were necessary and that legal procedures were already adequate. They criticised both the drafting and the need for legislation. The Minister for Local Government, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, did not explain why the Government have completely gone back on a view they held a year ago.
8 pm
I am aware that since our previous debate small amendments have been made in the other place. I agree


with other hon. Members that the three amendments before us tonight marginally improve the previous drafting. The first amendment adds the word "intentionally", and that is certainly an improvement. The second amendment deletes some tautologous words. The third is declaratory and, if it does anything, it might help to make slightly clearer what is already in the clause. However, none of those amendments goes to the heart of the mischief in the clause, nor do they deal with the argument about why the clause should not pass on to the statute book.
I shall respond to the arguments about morality. Many people believe that it is hypocritical for the Government to seek to legislate for morality as they define it when, at the same time, the poor become poorer, the rich become relatively richer, the people who depend on social security will have less chance of obtaining it and when for many opportunity in our society will be reduced because they are riot favoured by the capitalist market-led Government. Morality is not what a lot of people see as the result of the Government's policies. It is not for Parliament to legislate for a nation of 50 million or more people. It is not for Parliament to decide that there shall be one morality for all — the morality of the Government of the day. A civilised society should recognise that it has a duty to legislate for civil rights, for civil liberties and for freedom to choose for all. Adults must be allowed to make their own choices and, provided they do not harm others, they must be free to do so without fear of being victimised. Hearsay arguments such as that unreasonably put forward by the hon. Member for Edgbaston must be challenged. The wording of the clause means that there is a risk that the courts will be given a legislative weapon that will allow them not to protect those whom it is thought they might want to protect but to act far more widely.
The word "promotion" is still in the clause. It is the "promotion" of homosexuality that will be forbidden. The dictionary definition shows that there are two alternative meanings of the word "promotion". The first says:
To further the growth, development, progress or establishment of (anything); to further advance or encourage".
The second definition is very different. It says:
To put forth into notice; to publish; to assert, advance". That is simply the neutral state of putting into the public domain information about homosexuality.
"Homosexuality" is the second key word of the clause. The meaning is very wide and is not defined clearly in the statute. It will be open to the courts to say that neutral non-commending activity by local councils can be in violation of the law. That is what makes this such a dangerous clause and why it has been perceived widely in the country to be so.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am concerned about a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. He suggested that in some way the clause radically changes existing law in relation to the rights of the individual. The clause changes nothing in existing law in relation to the practice of homosexuality or lesbianism. Therefore, there is grave danger in whipping up a great deal of hysteria about problems that do not exist. I take the point that he made about the word "promotion". He is on much stronger ground there. However, we have to keep away from broadening the argument and misleading the public by raising issues that are unconnected.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the clause adds something to the law—the

Government say that it adds something necessary and Conservative Members support it for that reason—or, as the Government argued 15 months ago, it adds nothing to the law and in that case it should not be here.
Other aspects of the clause are open to misinterpretation and were fallaciously added. Inherent in the clause is the belief that homosexuality can be promoted — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that it can. That is a hotly disputed scientific issue. I read direct testimony to the House from people who are homosexual. I did not quote hearsay evidence. Those people said that in their earlier years they had been exposed to heterosexual advertising and that it had not changed them in the slightest. The hon. Member for Edgbaston cannot have it both ways. Surely she accepts that the evidence of many scientists and ordinary people shows that people who discover that they have a homosexual orientation have no ability to do anything about it or believe that they have no ability to do anything about it. Therefore, promoting that condition is a logical inconsistency. Of course one can promote activity, but promoting a psychological state is probably impossible. It certainly could not be promoted by a local authority.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If that is so, why does the GLC's charter for lesbian and gay rights say:
Heterosexuality is not natural but acquired"?

Mr. Hughes: I dissent front that view. I made it clear in Committee that I opposed the clause from the beginning. I believe that the issue is whether people of different sexuality should be given the same facilities by their local council: the same education, the same information and the same support as anybody else. It seems a matter of simple civil liberties and human rights that they should. We should not be judgmental in one direction or another.
I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will not seek by law to impose any religious or theological morality on anybody else. He is welcome to seek to persuade somebody to make a choice but not to do that by legislation. People should not be made to put their religion into a second or lower category. That is clearly a parallel implication of the clause.
I shall support the amendments tabled in the name of the Labour party. I understand and appreciate the fact that Mr. Speaker could not select the amendments I tabled, but I believe that they would have been to the advantage of the clause and the gay community. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) does not share that view. However, the advice that I received from people who looked at the issue carefully was that they would be an improvement. However, I am happy for there to be disagreement about that. I hold to my view. I support the amendments and those tabled by the Government.
The tragedy of the matter is that the mischief in the Bill will not be dealt with in the House tonight. An enormous amount of fearful public opinion has asked the Government to allow people with different sexual orientations or concerns to have the same status and recognition as anybody else in our supposed pluralist society.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I have now had an opportunity to look at the dictionary from which the hon. Gentleman was reading a


few moments ago. He will recall that he read out three definitions of the word "promote" and took exception to the third. Will he accept, on reflection, that the definition to which he took exception is marked as being obsolete? The last example is recorded as having been used in 1623.

Mr. Hughes: If the Minister had read the definition carefully I would accept that, but he has not. I did not quote that definition. I specifically quoted the ones—I ask him to look at Hansard tomorrow — which are above that on that page in the dictionary and which are both extant. I can understand that, in the heat of the debate and to try to deal with a point quickly, the Minister may have read too quickly. There are two alternative definitions, both of which are available to the courts and both of which are extant, and that is where the mischief lies.
The Government have an opportunity to listen to the fears that are being expressed by hon. Members about this clause. Although we shall pass these amendments, I hope that very soon we shall have an opportunity to right the wrong that will have been done to many people by a Government who say they know better what is best for them than they do themselves.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I took part in the debate on this clause in December. Since then I have received no letters in support of the lobbying that has been carried out by the homosexual opponents of the clause, but many people have written to say they are in favour of the clause. Many of my constituents find the proposition so self-evident that they wonder why there has been any debate whatsoever.
I take the view that the Christian Church has taken over the past 2,000 years, which recognises that some people have homosexual orientation but that homosexual genital acts and behaviour are intrinsically immoral.
I hope that people will recognise that we are not setting out to attack homosexuals for being homosexual, but are entitled to hold the view that homosexual behaviour is immoral. That view has been held by the Christian Church for 2,000 years. St. Paul says that one should condemn the sin but always forgive the sinner. I believe that that is the attitude that Parliament should adopt.
The second question that we should ask is, how far should the law be concerned in sexual matters? Few would argue that there is a place for the law in sexual matters. The question is, what is the extent of the law's involvement? The law quite rightly forbids a range of perversions such as bestiality, under-age sex and other behaviour. We are happy that the law should have a view on such matters. I have always taken the view that St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the "Summa Theologica," got it about right:
Human legislation, which is enacted for a group composed for the greater part of human beings who are not of consummate virtue, does not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain".
We set out to deal only with those that have a dramatic and detrimental effect on society.
I believe that the Government are in tune with public opinion and what is right for our society. We are not saying that people cannot be homosexual. All that the clause does is say that local authorities may not promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle that people should be encouraged to support. Further, it says that in

schools children should not be taught that homosexuality is a way of life that they should follow. That is a very sensible, clear and simple definition.

Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman's reference to St. Thomas Aquinas reminded me that in the same "Summa Theologica" he suggested that any Government who treat their minorities with injustice are tantamount to a tyrant form of Government and should be overthrown by the popular support of the people. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that passage?

Mr. Bennett: I certainly do and there is nothing in the clause to contradict what St. Thomas said. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who once trained for the Catholic priesthood, should find that this clause has any connection with what St. Thomas said.
We should be aware of the misinformation campaign that has been run by a number of people in society to stir up fears of and misapprehensions about the homosexual community. I am sorry that the Arts Council—which did not defend the rights of newspapers such as those of the Murdoch group when they were banned from public libraries—should seek to misrepresent the effect of this clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was right when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask what civil liberties are under attack. The simple answer is that no civil liberties are under attack. The Bill and this clause do not take away the civil rights of homosexuals. The clause merely prevents the promotion of homosexuality, which does not detract from homosexual rights.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The civil rights that are being taken away are for every growing person and young adult to have the same quality of education and the same level of accurate information as anyone else. The right to education should be given equally; there should be a right to have questions answered equally honestly and there should be a right for the same kind of advice, counselling and support as for anyone else.

Mr. Bennett: There is nothing in the clause that will prevent that. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the clause he will not see that counselling is not forbidden. What is forbidden is the promotion of homosexuality as being a lifestyle that young people should follow.
Society has a right to say that there are some things that it does not believe should be promoted in the best interests of children. There are many things that we do not allow schools to promote, and about which Labour Members may agree. For instance, we do not allow schools to promote smoking as a good idea. We believe quite strongly that we should be stopping young people from smoking, and we do not say "You should smoke." We do not believe that we should support racism. We make judgments and decide what schools should teach and how subjects should be balanced in the curriculum. It is not unreasonable to say that the curriculum should he geared to the view that the vast majority of people in our society believe to be right. We want to encourage our young people wherever possible — we know that some people would take a contrary view—to be heterosexual—and to live, if they choose to


get married, in a loving family relationship. That is the acceptable and proper way for our society to be preserved and maintained.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman say what mischief in the law this amendment is deemed to he tackling? Is there any evidence that he or anyone else can deploy that a local authority has promoted homosexuality? The evidence seems to be very slender.

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman had not just walked into the Chamber, he would have heard, over the past hour. Conservative Members giving examples of what has happened in the past year. [Interruption.] I shall give one or two examples. Haringey council has instructed its head teachers to develop courses to
Promote positive images of lesbians and gays".

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, I have been asked to give examples and I am doing so—
in furtherance of its equal opportunities policy involving 'action against racism and sexism as well as against heterosexism'.
That was from the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July 1986.
According to The Evening Standard of 23 June 1987, parents in Haringey tore down posters in Haringey primary schools advertising the Gay Pride week organised on behalf of the local authority.
The GLC's charter for lesbian and gay rights, which I mentioned a minute ago, states:
Heterosexuality is not natural but acquired.
It went on to attack normal sex education because:
the current trend towards teaching parent craft assumes that all parents are heterosexual and encourages students to see marriage as the major goal in life".
There have been quite a few examples, in the past year and a half, of where local authorities in some parts of London have gone out of their way to promote homosexuality as a lifestyle.
We are entitled as members of society to have a view on that. I am sorry that Labour Members take the view that Conservative Members are not entitled to put forward the viewpoint that is supported by our constituents. Society is entitled to expect all schools to promote a lifestyle which is in accord with Judaic-Christian principles which underlie our society. This clause does no more than ensure that that situation is enforced.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Having heard the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), it is difficult to know whether to scream or cry. The confusion of thought and misguided instincts that led him to speak as he has done make it difficult to understand what is in the mind of the Government or Conservative Members who will go into the Lobby to support this amendment.
It is difficult to know whether the motive behind the remarks by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was genuine intolerance, which the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) displayed by referring to homosexuality as a psychopathic logical aversion equivalent to sadism, or simply misguided mischief and the hon. Gentleman thought that he would make a little political capital or have some fun on the Back Benches. I wish that I were speaking after him so that I could understand more fully what led him to make those remarks.
Whatever the motive of the hon. Gentleman, or of the Government, unless the clause is amended in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has described tonight, it will do immense damage and cause immense pain and anguish to men and women who just happen to find that their attraction, love and comfort are found in a relationship with members of their own sex rather than the opposite sex.
Conservative Members have referred constantly to choosing homosexuality. Gays and lesbians no more choose how they feel than heterosexuals choose heterosexuality. This is not a logical choice that people make; this is something that people feel.

Mr. Wilshire: Presumably the hon. Gentleman has studied all the available evidence from objective academic sources on that point. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I have come to the conclusion that there is a small amount of objective evidence to support what he says and an equally small amount of evidence to the contrary. As long as there are no established facts, we as a society should say that, until it is proved that somebody's sexuality cannot be changed, we must assume that it can be, just in case.

Mr. Fisher: As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is little substantial scientific evidence on either side. It is not something that lends itself to such analysis.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Fisher: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne should look into his own life. Did he make a logical choice to be homosexual or heterosexual? I do not believe that he or any other hon. Member has made that logical, rational choice. They followed what they found to be loving, attractive and helpful in their lives.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend has just made the point that I was going to make.

Mr. Fisher: Before looking at the nature and possible results of that pain and anguish, I want to consider the effects of the clause in its present form on the artistic life of our society and upon our libraries. There has been a great deal of discussion in the public press and elsewhere about that. Undoubtedly, if the clause is carried in its present form, with the uncertainty of its legal language, books in our libraries, exhibitions of photographs and fine art in our galleries, plays in our theatres, and films in art centres may be at risk if those buildings are run or controlled by a local authority. As I understand the word "promote", anything that potentially glorifies, makes attractive or preferential, homosexual, gay or lesbian love is at risk as a result of this clause. The Minister shakes his head. It may well be that E. M. Forster, Jean Genet and others will remain on our library shelves, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) so wisely said, not only is David Hockney proud to be a gay person, but much of his work glorifies and has its roots in the fact that that is how he sees the world, having suffered the intolerance and prejudices which are at the core of this clause. He has seen the world through that experience and through those eyes and that is why his work is so powerful.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman made precisely the same point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 25 January. He replied:
I have been advised that local authorities seeking simply to provide the public with access to a comprehensive range of artistic and literary material will not be put at risk by that provision."—[Official Report, 25 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 13.]
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is no longer true?

Mr. Fisher: As other hon. Members have said, assurances from the Treasury Bench will not stand up in court. They have no validity in court. Equally, I would be curious to know who has advised the Minister for the Arts about that. Undoubtedly, the Arts Council has not advised the Minister for the Arts, nor has the Library Association and nor has any regional arts association in Britain. I know of nobody in the artistic community who has so advised the Minister for the Arts.

Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that possibly the first effort of any Government Department in this sphere was in 1984 when certain literary giants employed by the Customs and Excise raided the Gay's the Word bookshop in my constituency and, exercising their brilliant discretion, confiscated, because they believed it to be obscene, a book which set out the proceedings of the first medical seminar on how to stop the spread of AIDS. That was — I checked it — on advice from solicitors working for the Treasury. If they are the sort of people who are giving advice to Ministers, everybody had better look out.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The uncertainty and unsafeness of the wording of the clause will potentially put those artistic activities at risk if they glorify and beautify and therefore could be said to promote homosexual life.
Undoubtedly, the most beautiful story that could possibly do that is the story of Jonathan and David. I am sure that no Conservative Member would presume that that would be stripped from our library shelves if it were owned by a local authority. That just shows how ludicrous the clause would be if it were not so dangerous.
8.30 pm
There is a danger greater even than that of the direct, overt and clear problem of the activities or concerns of local authorities' arts policies being challenged in the courts. That is the intangible danger of self-censorship in the arts. If the clause is passed, it is inevitable that people running local authority theatres or other such places will ask themselves whether they should put on the play, or whatever, or whether that would be risking the viability of their theatres or other places. They will perhaps decide to censor their programmes for next year in advance so as not to put the work of their colleagues or local authorities at risk. Such self-censorship is a much greater danger because we shall not know that it is happening. None of us will know what local authority theatres are doing behind the scenes, so a whole area of self-expression and witness to what it is like to live in our society will quietly, gently and unobservably be written out of our culture. That should give us great cause for concern. It will make it impossible to come back in a year's time to discover what is happening. The Minister may return in a year's time and

say that there have been no prosecutions and that Forster and Genet are still on the library shelves. But he will not be able to say how much self-censorship has been applied when applying for commissions, sponsorships or grants.
Already, two clients of the Greater London Arts Association have been advised informally that they would be well advised, when making their grant application for next year, not to refer to the words "gay" or "lesbian" and that their grant applications will be more likely to be successful, and their work to prosper, if they ignore and suppress that side of their work. Such hidden self-censorship is more dangerous, and I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that point.
A third thing is more dangerous still. Local authorities' council chambers will be used as law courts. We already have evidence of that. A motion has been tabled by the Conservative minority group on Haringey's council for discussion on 25 April, which calls on the council to

"(a) Immediately close the Lesbian and Gay unit.
(b) Abolish the Curriculum Working Party.
(c) To cease all measures to promote homosexuality anywhere"

and so on.

Mr. Roger King: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but when that is debated in Haringey council the constraints of evidence and balance that would exist if the first case were brought before a court of law and duly judged will not exist. In a court everyone could see the terms and conditions on which the judgment had been made, but in the borough of Haringey the issue will be determined more by the balance of power, and the same will apply to other councils. Surely every hon. Member would agree that that is not a satisfactory way in which to interpret the law. It is a perfectly fair way in which to interpret the political mandate of the people of any authority, but in this case the effect of the law will be tested, which must be extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hind: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has missed one fundamental aspect. If he and I this evening wanted to set up the Westminster gay and lesbian rights association, to raise money and to promote gay and lesbian activities and understanding the problems faced by gay and lesbian people, there is nothing in English law to stop us from doing so. All the clause does is to stop local education authorities from doing that and ramming such ideas down the throats of children in the classroom.

Mr. Fisher: It is extraordinary, after the clause has been so widely debated in the House, in Committee and in the press, that the hon. Gentleman has not read it. It does not mention local education authorities; it is about all local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should have read the clause before he intervened.
Any right-minded or tolerant person would find the effects that I have described worrying and undesirable. All hon. Members should recognise that the clause will create an atmosphere of intolerance against, and possibly even witch-hunting of gay and lesbian people. Because promoting their lifestyle is unacceptable, they, by implication, will become unacceptable and dangerous. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said—by implication—that will affect the way courts view custody decisions, it will affect job


applications and it will affect police activity. I see the Minister shaking his head. Of course it will not affect such things directly, but the clause has already created an atmosphere—witness the cartoon in The Sun today and the many letters that we have all received. An atmosphere in society has already been stimulated and provoked by the clause. Surely the Minister can recognise that that is true. He may not have intended it, but that is how it is.
This new atmosphere does not want to think about gay or lesbian people or to allow them to express themselves and say what it feels like to he one of them. It wants to turn away from all such things. It is an atmosphere that feels threatened and worried by what people do not understand. Some Conservative Members, like the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), may feel that homosexuality is a mortal sin. No doubt they welcome the fact that gay and lesbian people's rights to express themselves are to be suppressed, driven out and downgraded. Why do Conservative Members feel that way? Some hon. Members have said that it is because of the idea that homosexuality may be promoted. That seems misguided and ludicrous. We are speaking of feelings, instincts. If promotion were effective, everyone would be heterosexual because the overwhelming mass of material in our culture, media, advertising and family lives promotes heterosexuality. Most people are brought up in a heterosexual family atmosphere. That is one of the most determining influences on everyone, quite apart from advertising, Shakespeare and our whole culture, which constantly promotes heterosexual love. If promotion were effective, everyone would be heterosexual. It is perfectly obvious that it is not. The matter is much more complex and personal than that.
Other Conservative Members talked about protecting young people. I do not think that they know—none of us does—at what age our sexuality is decided. I do not think they could find a single psychiatrist anywhere in the country to support their contentions, which are centred on the idea of protection.
One of the Government's ideas is more bizarre than any of the others. In another place, the noble Lord Caithness implied that the clause, far from provoking witch hunts and an atmosphere of intolerance, as I fear it will, will allay hostility. I see the Minister agrees with that—but he cannot.

Mr. Dobson: Humbug.

Mr. Fisher: It must be a mistake. The clause will not allay anything. Remember the cartoon in The Sun. Have those feelings been allayed by the clause? That cartoon is a direct result of the clause. It is playing and pandering to, and feeding on, the intolerance in our society—

Mr. Tony Banks: Unleashing the forces of evil.

Mr. Fisher: That is a strong phrase, but there undoubtedly is intolerance. The clause will not allay that; it will stimulate it.
We are dealing with two overriding issues. Is ours a society in which people are free to say what they want in the arts and the media? Are they free to talk about how they feel about loving people of the same sex? Are they free to say that even in local authority theatres? Is ours a society in which people are free to love and care for others, irrespective of whether they are of their own sex?
Surely the Minister will agree that freedom is absolutely paramount in a civilised society. He probably will not

agree that the Government's record in defending freedom of speech is pretty rotten. But this is far darker, more sinister and more important than other attempts that the Government have made, through pressure on the BBC, banning books or taking people to court. All such things are sad, sick, totally misguided and wrong, and the people of this country will begin to see it. This is more serious and sinister, because a set of people will be made scapegoats by the clause, and that makes it even more painful.
The second point is that a tenth of people in society will not be able to promote what they feel through artistic works. That is difficult. Undoubtedly, there is a streak of male chauvinism in society. Certainly, any woman in our society would recognise that. They have been marginalised. Their voices have been suppressed and marginalised. They have had to battle to make their voices heard in our arts and media. Undoubtedly, that is true also of gay people. In that respect, I suspect that the norm in our society is not heterosexuality but male chauvinism, which is a different thing. Such people are uneasy and fearful of such things that they do not understand. Whether or not that is the case, unless the clause is amended, as is proposed, it will set back tolerance and freedom of expression and the arts and the media in our society. It will drive things underground. The clause cannot change how people feel. It cannot change what people are attracted by. Although the House cannot delete the clause, as it should, it can at last put down a marker, as the Opposition seek to do, for decency and tolerance by voting for the amendment. I hope that it will do so.

Mr. Michael Brown: To sonic extent, the debate is a rerun of the arguments that we rehearsed with the Minister in Committee and on Report. My views are already on the record, and the Lords amendment has done nothing to change them. Various arguments have been expressed by Opposition Members. The clause will be totally unenforceable. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) referred to literature. If he thinks that it will result in any court convictions, he is totally off-beam. The Minister's predecessor rejected the clause just over a year ago, when it appeared in the House of Lords in the form of a private Member's Bill. He said that it would be unlikely to work, that it would be unenforceable, and that it would lead to misinterpretation. As several hon. Members have said, on Report, we did not get any satisfactory explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister.
I shall repeat the question that was posed not only today but on Report. It was posed also by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). How is it that, 15 months ago, for excellent reasons, my hon. Friend's predecessor in the House of Lords advised the House of Lords to reject the private Member's Bill? What has changed? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he took the legislation through its stages. How is it that, when he presented the Bill on Second Reading, it did not have that clause in it? That is why the clause must be resisted. Smoke signals are being sent out from the House by the enactment of this unenforceable piece of legislation. The House of Commons is getting itself into a frame of mind, ready to legislate down the road of persecution and prejudice.
Some of my hon. Friends cannot understand why there has been a reaction from the gay community. The reason


is that they see the style, character and attitude of the House of Commons being reflected in the clause. Some hon. Members have admitted — I do not take their names or views in vain—that if they could go further, they would, but they are limited by the scope of the Bill. Therefore, if we pass this new clause, even with the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), a smoke screen will go out to the gay community. That is that the character and attitude of the House of Commons in 1988, after several years of reasonably civilised debates, is slowly to reduce an element of the 1970s and early 1980s and to go in the reverse direction.
The reason is quite straightforward. It is because of the AIDS scare. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that the House had a duty to follow populism. I do not believe that, in matters relating to free society and libertarianism, we have a duty to respond to populism. We have a duty to lead public opinion. This legislation is doing exactly the opposite.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend referred to the gay community as though it were a community. I have many close friends who happen to be homosexuals. They are not a community; they are individual people. The mere fact that my hon. Friend calls them a community, as though they were some sacrosanct church, shows why the clause is necessary.

Mr. Brown: I am prepared to replace the words "gay community" with "individual homosexuals who have written to hon. Members during the past three or four months".
Individual homosexuals feel that there is a threat in the clause. I am prepared to concede that there is unlikely to be a direct threat from the clause. The clause demonstrates to a homosexual that the green light has been given to The Sun, the News of the World and other newspapers to have an open season on homosexuality. That fear is well founded. If the clause is passed, we can expect individual members to introduce private Members' Bills, with the possibility that the Government will back further legislation in other respects.
The Minister has set out his views. He was not able to satisfy me on Report. I am saddened by his attitude. It was a pleasure for me to serve on the Committee, when he steered an otherwise perfectly sensible, good piece of legislation. That legislation has been spoiled by this unnecessary new clause. Even with the amendments, it is an unfortunate smear on an otherwise good piece of legislation. The Minister will not admit it, but, had he known that the clause would provoke such a reaction by various organisations and individuals, he would not have taken it on board.
I am prepared to accept that certain pieces of good English literature will remain on library shelves. Hon. Members have referred to books by E. M. Forster. Let us suppose that a syllabus for the GCSE examination contains, as is quite possible, books by E. M. Forster. I studied one of his books at O-level. Let us suppose that the school decided to take the class studying that book to see the film "Maurice". I can imagine some people using the clause to prevent that happening. I think that there will be some weird, wonderful and excessive misuses of court time

because of this irrelevant and unenforceable piece of legislation. I am sad and sorry that my hon. Friend persists with it.

Mr. Holland: First, I should like to comment on a claim made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) which concerned a Lambeth nursery group. I sought to intervene in her speech to ask for her evidence and I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber at the moment. With a constituency in Lambeth, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who was able to intervene. The hon. Member for Edgbaston said, "When parents complain." I have not had a single parent alleging what the hon. Member for Edgbaston alleged concerning any school in Lambeth. There has not been a single individual complaint from parents on those grounds. I have not had a single letter supporting the clause. I have received many letters and representations opposing the clause.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for passing across the literature alleged to be from the Terrence Higgins Trust, which was referred to earlier. The hon. Gentleman may agree that it is not evident that that literature was published by the Terrence Higgins Trust. It looks rather as if it was produced by a local group advertising the Healthline service of the Terrence Higgins Trust. The whole thrust of the trust's argument is precisely to combat AIDS. It is widely recognised that unless literature concerning AIDS is sexually explicit it will not reach its target audience and will in no way serve to combat AIDS.
While there is next to no evidence of public sponsorship of homosexuality, there is overwhelming evidence of private sponsorship of heterosexual pornography, with indecent displays giving grave offence to many people. That is especially relevant to the clause inasmuch as it affects the young.
One of my constituents recently sent me a leaflet advertising various forms of sexual aids, including a broad range which I am sure is known to hon. Members, whether or not they use them. In reality, these are very offensive to many people, whether they are vibrators or stimulators, or other forms of sexual aids. The point was that my constituent picked up the leaflet outside an infants' school. He was offended and outraged that it should have been on the pavement outside a school. He asked me what was my view of the impact which that would have on infants or young children if they saw it, and he asked why the Government do not seek to introduce legislation to restrain the availability of such literature.
It is very difficult to reply for the Government on this matter. They are overwhelmingly concerned to ensure that local authorities are not seen to promote or to be interpreted as promoting any activity which supports homosexual behaviour, yet show no concern whatever about pornographic literature, including literature about bondage or other forms of abuse which is so widely available and so offensive to women, parents and others. One can only conclude that it is available because it serves the interests of profit. It is such a profitable trade that there is no restraint on it, whereas the other does not involve profit but allegedly involves public spending.

Mr. Fisher: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the crucial difference is that the things he


is talking about are designed to harm and humiliate people, whereas homosexuality is about loving and comforting and caring for people of whatever sex?

Mr. Holland: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
Grave problems are raised by the wording of the clause, including the amendments suggested in the other place. For example, how does one distinguish in a court of law between a relationship which is loving and not seeking to promote offence and one which is not? The Government seem to be incredibly sanguine about that. The other place seems to be very optimistic that the word "intentionally" will remedy the matter.
I do not know how many hon. Members have actually studied the issue of intention, or have been able to enjoy what was a standard textbook on that matter in an undergraduate course, certainly read by some hon. Members at a certain university. The book is by Miss G. E. M. Anscombe. The whole point about intention is its ambiguity. Determining what is a fact and the difference between fact and intent is itself ambiguous. Just as the determination of what is a fact may itself be difficult, the problems involving determining intention can be virtually impossible to resolve. That issue is stressed by many philosophers. In some universities that issue has come into the teaching of law. I very much regret to say that in that respect the Lords amendments will not be adequate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the definition of "promote" is ambiguous, the addition of the word "intentionally" does not remove the ambiguity?

Mr. Holland: The ambiguity remains and is being compounded. It will certainly be good news for lawyers, as one can argue as long on the meaning of "promotion" as one can on the meaning of "intentionally". The most common-sense course would be to delete both words from the clause and preferably to delete the clause from the Bill.
The Minister intervened with some enthusiasm when the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about quotations from a dictionary. But the Minister was quite unaware of precisely what that meant. Indeed, it was part of a debate by a renowned philosopher, A. J. Ayer, who recognised that it was indeed difficult to determine the meaning of words. He ended by saying that by and large the meanings of words corresponded with their use in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Even if one accepts that approach, one still cannot determine meaning unambiguously in an individual context. Wittgenstein stressed that the meaning of words depends on their use, and that the use of words depends in turn on the perception of those who use them, which amounts to their prejudgment of the situation—which, in turn, too often amounts to prejudice. That is the bottom line in the interpretation of those words by those who are likely to bring the actions concerned.
9 pm
The Minister's claim that there was no danger in the use of a word in a court action because its meaning had been defined as obsolete or was reckoned as obsolete by the Oxford English Dictionary is absolutely no safeguard with this Government. In retrospect, given the outcome, I am glad to say that I was one of those who, when protesting against apartheid outside the South African embassy,

found that the rules on picketing had been changed. I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and we both had a short ride at the pleasure of the Metropolitan police. The Act under which we were prosecuted was introduced by Wellington after the Napoleonic war. It had not been used since the 1820s or early 1830s, until it was employed, over 150 years later, by the Metropolitan police to justify the restriction on the right to picket and protest against apartheid outside the South African embassy.

Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave this subject without telling the House—indeed, I shall do it for him — that, although we were both arrested, we were subsequently let off without a stain on our characters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that we can now get back to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Holland: I shall be glad to get straight back to the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I think that on reflection you will agree that my hon. Friend's point is not irrelevant.
Although the redundant clause was rejected by the courts, none the less, the police sought to use it. As that Act had not been used for 150 years, I see no guarantee or assurance — I do not know about other hon. Members—when the Minister says, "The meaning of that word is obsolete. Therefore, there will not be a prosecution." There will be prosecutions, which will be time-consuming and involve a great deal of personal strain and anguish for many of those involved. While my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I may be sufficiently thick-skinned by exposure in public life not to be concerned about such matters, many people who are not in public life and who do not face its challenges and responsibilities will suffer from such actions in the courts.
I have great problems understanding the arguments not only by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), but especially by the hon. and learned Member for Perth Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). The hon. and learned Gentleman has a peripatetic relationship with this Chamber. He is like the Scarlet Pimpernel—we see him here, we see him there and some times we see him nowhere. I very much regret that he is not here at the moment because I should have been glad to have some clarification of what he thinks the clause is about. It seems that, for him, the clause is about buggery, because he stressed that that is an unnatural act.
I hesitate to suggest this to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I am not sure that I am more expert in these matters than he is. I will none the less put it to him that if one takes a book such as Sade's "Justine" or the play "Marat-Sade", one has certain difficulties in defining a relationship which involves penetration of the back passage as "homosexual". In "Justine"—one thing that many people find abusive — the sexual intercourse between a range of persons and Justine was exclusively by the back passage. Let us be quite clear in this instant that Justine was a young woman.
There can be no basis for the kind of claims that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made that in some sense a particular form of sexual intercourse is de facto or by association homosexual rather than heterosexual. I very much regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not present to answer certain other questions. Indeed, I am


sure that he would have risen to his feet, and I am equally sure that I would have given way. For example, what is homosexual about oral sex? I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman was here so that he could assure the House that he has never had sex on any occasion except by one passage and one passage only. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could assure us about that, we would also be assured about several other matters.
The question of the promotion of homosexuality as a result of events or literature has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who opened on the Conservative Benches — his speech was extremely persuasive — referred to Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears. Let us consider a performance of Benjamin Britten's setting of the Michelangelo sonnets. I happen to be extremely familiar with those sonnets and Britten's setting of them. In my opinion, there is no question that, by choosing to set those sonnets, Britten approved of the relationship that they reflected. The Michelangelo sonnets were written not to some young woman in Dantesque manner, but to a papal guard. They are quite explicitly homosexual.

Mr. Fisher: And beautiful.

Mr. Holland: Very beautiful, especially when they are sung by myself. I will not detain the House with a rendering of those sonnets, unless there is overwhelming support from both sides of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have heard my hon. Friend sing those sonnets and he tells the truth. I hope that he will regale the House for just a brief moment.

Mr. Holland: Not this evening, unless joined by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The only evidence that has been presented by Conservative Members relating to the promotion of homosexuality in schools and its abuse has been quotes from particular newspapers—the Evening Standard and The Daily Telegraph. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 19 February 1988, The Daily Telegraph produced a list of 100 books that every school leaver should have read? That list included "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov, "Collected Poems" by W. H. Auden, "Don Juan" by Byron, the works of Oscar Wilde and the short stories of Guy de Maupassant. I hope that Conservative Members will take that list seriously and that those books will not be banned from school libraries.

Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend has made an important point, with which I agree.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross passed through Socrates—stamping where others fear to tread—and then moved swiftly on, in a bound, to the Renaissance and started to speak about Leonardo. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has read Freud's essay on Leonardo's homosexuality and what may have caused it. Several of my hon. Friends have said how difficult it is to date a particular sexual orientation.
Freud said that Leonardo's sexual orientation was reflected in his art. It appears that his sexuality derived either from an experience in his cot no less, when it was possible that his mouth was brushed by a bird's tail, or in the particular manner in which he was kissed by his mother. I am sure that Conservative Members do not

regard this as very serious, but I cannot be entirely sure whether the hon. Member for Edgbaston is up with the arguments. I am not sure whether we are safe from the risk that she and others will regard Freud's essay on Leonardo as pernicious in the sense that, by implication, it condones homosexuality, and therefore seek to exclude it from libraries.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross came out with words that, if he reads Hansard tomorrow morning, he may come to regret. He referred to Leonardo's squint. Of all the draughtsmen in the world, Leonardo is surely the last whom one can accuse of squinting. But it seems that the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproves of the creative genius of the Renaissance.
We have no idea how the clause will be used. I am concerned because it is unsound in philosophical and legal terms. It will give rise to considerable abuse and will bring considerable distress on those in the homosexual community. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, I use the word "community" since gays tend to stick together in their social life precisely for reasons of mutual and collective defence. Such self-defence will be made more necessary by the clause. I oppose the clause because of its ridiculous conceit, as well as because of the offence it will cause to many people who, as my hon. Friends have said, have decent, caring and respectful relationships that happen to be homosexual. I recommend to the House that it reject the amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: We have spent three hours discussing the general issues, and it would seem helpful if we could focus our attention on the Amendment Paper, for a moment or two at least, and consider both the Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments to them.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that after all this time perhaps those of us who have been closely involved with the clause now regret what has happened. I have no regrets. I have worries about some of the things that others have done and said, and before I discuss the detailed issues, may I place it on record once again that I most certainly deplore bigotry of all kinds. I accept that during the debate over the past few months there have been occasions on which 1 have heard bigotry. Equally, I join Opposition Members in deploring what they describe as the gutter press—their words, not mine. In a debate of this nature, salacious and cheap attacks on people will not achieve what is absolutely necessary if we are to get to the heart of the issue—a constructive, friendly and thoughtful exchange of views between people of different opinions.
As the proposer of what was originally clause 27—I am still trying to keep up with the numbers; at the moment it is clause 28 but I am sure that we shall reach 30 or 31 before the Bill is enacted—I welcome for two reasons the amendments that the Lords have sent us. First, in not rejecting the clause, the Lords have accepted what this House originally accepted—that there is a need for action now and that the Bill is the correct means of taking it. Secondly, the amendments prove the point that those of us who have argued for the clause have always been ready to listen and to take on board suggestions that clarify what was intended at the outset.
The amendments give the lie to the spurious claims that some of the scaremongers have been putting about. By the same token, I totally oppose the two amendments tabled


by the Labour party. The first of them seeks to torpedo one of the basic intentions of the clause and the second seems to be a statement of the obvious, which is totally unnecessary in an Act of Parliament. It is interesting that the justification advanced by the hon. Member for Copeland simply fell back on exaggerations that we have heard before, on red herrings with no relevance to the debate and on the scare stories put about by those who want us to change our minds.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman asserts that I exaggerate, although I do not. Does he make the same assertions about the Arts Council, the National Council for Civil Liberties, library associations, various local authority associations and all sorts of other bodies and organisations concerned with freedom and civil liberties in our society? Are they all exaggerating too?

Mr. Wilshire: I shall deal with that question in detail. For the moment I am saying that I was replying to the earlier speeches of Opposition Members. Many of the organisations which have been mentioned, with the exception of the Arts Council, have raised red herrings that have nothing to do with the clause or the Bill. I was suggesting that they have raised red herrings and scare stories, not that they have exaggerated.
I consider amendment (e) to be a wrecking amendment. It resembles the amendment that the Arts Council tried to get the other place to take on board. It seems to suggest that homosexuality can be intentionally promoted by local government if the motivation is to prevent discrimination or abuses of civil rights. That smacks of the argument that the end justifies the means, an approach that is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority. My postbag—I suspect that this is true of the postbags of many other hon. Members—has been enormously illuminating. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. He, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), moves in and out of the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is present when I am not speaking and now, when I am on my feet, he is absent.

Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not silly.

Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Gentleman helped me by spelling out the policy of the Labour party. I have received quite a few letters on this issue and when he was speaking I wondered whether he would be able to help me to reply to them. I shall read part of the letter that I received from a gentleman who lives in London, SE3. He writes:
I have been a member of the Labour Party and I have supported it ever since 1945, yet I totally agree with your views on homosexuality.
He continues:
I have already written to Mr. Neil Kinnock … I have told him that unless he and other Labour leaders repudiate the view that homosexuality is on a par with normal sexuality"—
He then says that if that does not happen there is no hope of the Labour party ever again gaining power. I wonder whether any Opposition Members can help me answer letters of that sort.
Amendment (e) has three faults. First, it is wrong in any circumstances for local government to try fundamentally to change our national society. In continuing with this

theme, I shall try to answer a question posed by an Opposition Member, who asked why I was prepared to support the clause. It is wrong for local government to seek to usurp the rights of this place to discuss the fundamental values of British society. If there is to be a discussion about the promotion of homosexuality, it should take place in the Chamber. If there is to be an attempt to change society, it should be made in our national Parliament and not within local government.
Secondly, amendment (e) is wrong because it is not for local government to advocate—I choose the next words deliberately — abnormal sexual activity for whatever reason. Thirdly, the amendment is wrong because it is not for local government to divert itself from basic services when those services are so in need of improvement.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has said that if there is to be any change in our national society in terms of sexual mores, the change should be made in this place. Is he suggesting that if we were to pass a law to the effect that everyone should have homosexual relationships those outside would take it seriously and change their way of life?

Mr. Wilshire: All I am saying is that the people who say that society should have different values, morals and ethics—I have deliberately kept out of those arguments—and who wish to alter fundamentally national society must do it through the national democratic process and not act in an ad hoc fashion through local democracies.
Amendment (f) has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill because clause 28, or 29 as it will become, says nothing about discrimination or about civil rights. We have been round the argument for nearly three hours. The clause will not prevent homosexuals from doing anything. It will not deny homosexuals any of their civil rights. The clause is about homosexuality and local government; it is not about homosexuals and their personal lives.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 showed tolerance, compassion and understanding, though not necessarily approval? If gays and lesbians want people like ourselves to stand shoulder to shoulder against the so-called queer bashers, they have to take this gently and steadily and not expect too much. Certainly they should not expect the 90 per cent. majority in the country to allow that to be a subject on the curriculum in schools.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point because it gives me the opportunity to say once again for the record that I am totally against any attempt to turn the clock back on the 1967 legislation. This clause has nothing to do with that.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend is also relevant. The very fair point that is important about amendment (e) is that again it raises the problem of the ends justifying the means. The idea is that it is wrong to discriminate against people and that the clause will somehow affect civil rights. We must stand up and say that we agree that that must not happen. The way in which we do so is crucial. If things are advocated, as they have been advocated, argued about and abseiled in the last few months, that will produce a backlash. It is not the clause that will produce the backlash but the arrogant, self-assertive, aggressive boastfulness and self-glorification of


a particular lifestyle which is upsetting the overwhelming majority of the people. The lesson which we can learn is that if we wish to change society and to be seen as reformers, we must take society at its own speed. If we try to stampede society, people will feel threatened and there will be a real risk of a backlash.
This is why I am in no way sorry that we have been engaged in this debate over the last few months. Over recent years a dangerous head of steam has been building up. The minority have made the majority feel threatened. If we do not take steps to deal with that, pressure will build up. It is to be hoped that the debate that has taken place has had the effect of lancing the boil so that the minority can become aware of the views of the majority and the majority can say to themselves, "Let us try to understand and answer some of the worries of the minority."
As for amendment (f), as I said at the beginning, I believe it to be totally unnecessary. Local government has already got power to do most things unless the law specifically prohibits it. All the amendment does is state the obvious. The amendment seems to be trying to draw attention to claims about problems which will be caused to particular services. That is complete nonsense, as the past three hours have shown.
Much has been made about sex education. There are no problems for teachers provided that they handle the subject of homosexuality in a neutral and objective way. It is interesting to note that, although clause 28 has triggered an enormous amount of discussion, there are some important points in the Department of Education and Science circular No. 11/87. Indeed, this circular was available for debate long before the Local Government Bill was considered in Committee. Paragraph 22 of the circular sets the scene for sex education. It states:
There is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils.
I can only express surprise at the indignation of Opposition Members. If that indignation were genuine, it would have focused on the points in circular No. 11/87 long before the Local Government Bill appeared.
Worries have been expressed that amendment (f) might affect artistic freedom. We need only consider the legislation that seeks to prevent discrimination against people on grounds of race. Over the years since that legislation has been on the statute book, I have not noticed that Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" has been performed any less frequently.
There is an argument that local authorities should be able to give money to people for counselling services if that helps with problems. I support that, but it is totally spurious to argue that clause 28 has anything to do with that. As I have said elsewhere, I know of no one who has ever argued that the Samaritans promote suicide.
I urge the House to support the Lords amendments and to reject the Opposition amendments to the Lords amendments. By accepting the spirit of the clause, the other place agrees with us that there is a grave abuse of the real role of local government in this country. Local government is intentionally promoting homosexuality. It is assisting others to do the same and it is trying to portray homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
By producing the amendments the other place has helped us to clarify exactly what we mean — that our target is local government. By making local government the clear target for the clause, we are answering our critics and we will reassure those who have been worried by the debate that has taken place over the past few months. Above all, by accepting the Lords amendments and rejecting the Opposition amendments, we will do everything that we possibly can to protect our children, our society and above all our future.

Mr. Tony Banks: I will be brief, but I want to say something about the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I felt that her speech owed more to imagination than to truth. I listened to an interview that the hon. Lady gave on Radio 4's "Today" programme. Mr. Brian Redhead asked her to support her statement that she had a great deal of evidence about schools promoting homosexuality. Mr. Redhead asked her what evidence she had and she replied that she had not brought her files with her, but she claimed that she had the evidence. When she was pressed even further, she said "I didn't offer to name any schools." I am not surprised that the hon. Lady has received letters from parents who have been alarmed about the position. They have been alarmed by what the hon. Lady said.

Dame Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No. If the hon. Lady will wait a moment, I will give way to her, and that is more than she did to me or to anyone else.
It is not surprising that parents have become alarmed by the kind of scare stories and fantasies that the hon. Lady has propagated in her various interviews and speeches. She has no evidence and she has never been able to produce evidence, other than that which comes from her over-fertile imagination.

Dame Jill Knight: I have repeatedly given a list of local authorities in whose areas this has been going on. It seems odd to me that Opposition Members are apparently unaware that local authorities run local schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name the schools."] I have repeatedly given all the names of the local authorities, and this is local authority policy. I must also say that parents were complaining long before—

Mr. Banks: Which schools?

Dame Jill Knight: I have named them. The hon. Gentleman must not nit-pick with me. If he does not understand that local authority education runs the schools, he ought to go back and start learning about how these things are done—[Interruption.] Let me complete my remarks to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was good enough to give way.
None of this clause would have come into being without ample evidence, some of which I have read out tonight. All the parents complained long before I made that broadcast. A pregnant woman was kicked in the stomach and jolly nearly lost her child long before it.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady has not mentioned one school. She is clearly guilty but insane. I rest my case.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: When the Bill was before the House last time, I voted for the clause, because I believed that it would provide a degree of valuable


protection for the children of this nation against what I saw as a possible over-enthusiasm on the part of a small section of people, many of whom flaunt their homosexuality in a way that I regard as unnecessary. Since then, however, I have been reflecting on the clause, and have decided not to support the Government this evening.
I have three reasons. First, I think that the clause is unnecessary. Secondly, although I am certain that my hon. Friends had no intention of causing any such development, the reaction to the clause seems sufficiently dangerous and hysterical to make any value that might be derived from it far inferior to the damage that it will cause.
The third reason is linked to that. I think that we are in serious danger of allowing our desire to deal with various ills in society to spill over into finding nice little target groups on whom the evils of society can be blamed. At present, homosexual groups happen to be that target. That kind of hysteria leads to danger for those in such minority groups. When similar prejudice was evinced publicly against Asian immigrants, when they really were immigrants, it led to considerable dangers for the immigrant community.
Let me elaborate those points. I find it very strange that, in this enormously permissive and, on the whole, liberal age, it is probably uniquely difficult for a bachelor to share a house with another man — or for a single woman to share a house with another woman—without a kind of prurient voyeurism being beamed upon them, and all sorts of people speculating, often openly, on whether their friendship issues from some kind of physical behaviour, of which they then choose strongly to disapprove. That is extraordinarily illiberal, dangerous and totally unnecessary.
I believe that if our Lord were here now in physical presence walking about with his group of disciples, there would be plenty of people anxious to view his progress through the world with exactly the same sort of prurient voyeurism as we tend to display now. That is dangerous. What we should be inculcating in our children and the nation as a whole is that relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be non-exploitative. The partnerships should be equal in dignity and affection, if that is possible. We are in danger of creating an atmosphere in which it is difficult for people to attain that sort of relationship, and I find that distasteful and worrying.
Homosexuals who have taken it upon themselves to make the maximum demonstration of their anxieties about this clause have done themselves no good. I do not believe that one can promote tolerance or affection by the use of foul language or criminal behaviour. For example, the idea that the secretary of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) should be telephoned in the middle of the night and subjected to obscene language does the cause no good. It is absurd to present that as a full argument against the case. There are extremists on both sides of the argument. They are ugly and unattractive people and their behaviour should be deplored.
During the debate no hon. Member has addressed the issue of the proper function of the teacher. That function should be to assist a child to understand the subject that it is studying and the world in which it is being brought up. Any teacher who uses his or her position to exert undue influence upon a child to believe something simply because the teacher believes it, or worse, because the

teacher hopes subsequently to exploit the child by teaching it in that way is a poor teacher. Such teachers are dangerous and should be disciplined out of the profession if they cannot reform.
We do not need this clause because we are in the process of introducing a Bill to reform education. One of the purposes of that Bill is to bring regular assessment of teachers into being and to improve the discipline of teachers. If a teacher behaves in the way that I have described, the new Bill will make it possible to discipline or get rid of that teacher in an appropriate way. We do not need a heavy-handed clause of this sort to achieve that.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend may have reservations about what happens in schools and what legislation is available to prevent it, but will he accept that there is a whole lot more to local government than schools? There is an awful lot more promotion of homosexuality going on by local government outside classrooms.

Mr. Rowe: The difficult decision that is faced by any part of our society is where one draws the line to prevent discrimination against an individual or group without appearing in some way to encourage or sell the nature of an individual group. I believe that some local authority officials have gone over the top and, as they did when they tried to prevent discrimination against ethnic minorities, they have evoked precisely the response that they were trying to avoid. I do not believe that that by itself constitutes an adequate reason for this clause.
We would do well in the House and in society as a whole to do our' best to promote privacy and permanence. As to privacy, we live in a society that flaunts private lifestyles to an extent that makes it extremely difficult for an adult or child to be able to enjoy the proper privacy of their own way of life. The media have responded to the voyeurism that is so widespread in society by pandering to it, and that makes it difficult for many people to preserve their own privacy. It is not society's business what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes, provided that they are not exploiting one another. We fought a hard battle about this matter some years ago, and I fear that this clause might be seen as the thin end of the wedge for the gradual destruction of privacy.
With regard to permanence, what matters most is the mutual dignity of a relationship. Children should be taught to honour their partner and to strive for a measure of permanence in their relationships and the mutual support and esteem that a permanent relationship affords. Society has failed to promote that, whether it be between friends of the same sex or of the opposite sex, and that failure helps to account for the extraordinary difficulties that we all have in trying to maintain a permanent, supportive relationship in the privacy of our own homes.

Miss Joan Lestor: Looking back over the years at the subject of homosexuality and lesbianism, I have been struck by the fact that for so long homosexuals were the butt of the music-hall artist. They were stereotyped as being effeminate, made-up, powdered and mincing. This was the general way in which homosexuals were presented to society.
When I was a girl, people did not talk about lesbianism because Queen Victoria said that it did not exist. Nevertheless, the way in which homosexuals were


presented was that of stereotyping them as people to be laughed at, to be degraded and to be classified as being something outside the norms of society.
We hoped that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would begin to change people's attitudes—I believe that it did —and that we would have a society more tolerant of the behaviour of people whose sex life, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, is entirely their own affair.
But some of the stereotyping continues. What interests me is that the moment a local authority or group of people challenge that stereotyping and says, "Hold on a minute, homosexuals are not like that. Lesbians are not like that. They are not all stereotypes. They are not all mincing and effeminate and they do not all wear make-up or wigs. Let us present people in a positive way as individuals, making a contribution to society"—as we all are—they are told, "My God, you are promoting homosexuality. You are saying that it is a good thing and something that everyone should emulate."
9.45 pm
While all the stereotyping, character assassination and discrimination is going on, most people make no complaint at all. It is extraordinary that when groups of individuals, local authorities or whatever say that they want people, particularly young people, to have a positive image of their sexuality, which they have not chosen, all hell breaks out and we are told that that is actively promoting homosexuality.
Some hon. Members, although not all, talk about homosexuals and heterosexuals, but some people are bisexual and there are all sorts of degrees of sexuality. People cannot be categorised in the way in which many would try to do.
The clause is about much more than protecting children. So many of the speeches that have been made in defence of the Government's position have talked not about children, but about all sorts of practices and ways in which promotion is taking place.
As many hon. Members have said, although some people are supporting this in the genuine belief that it will be a help, they are wrong. What they are really talking about is re-criminalising homosexuality, as it was in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] If we are not talking about that, we would not have had the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I am glad that hon. Members say that that is not true. I hope that nobody who supports the clause would say that they would go back to that situation.
But if it were true that the clause is only about protecting children, as one or two hon. Members have said, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), there is a solution. The hon. Lady could have gone along to the Department of Education and Science in which I have been a Minister, with all the evidence that she failed to produce, and she could have said to the Secretary of State, "Look, this is what is going on in our schools. Look at this school. Look at that school. What are you going to do about it?".
If the evidence had been produced—it was not, as has been pointed out—the Secretary of State could have issued a circular or guidelines, he could have pointed out what is already in existence or assisted people in such a situation. That is what could have been done. But no, the

clause goes much wider than that. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent hit the nail on the head. A climate of opinion is now being created that makes homosexuals and lesbians the butt of those people who are bigoted and prejudiced. It makes them the scapegoats in our society.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that she had been the subject of a great deal of abuse, as had her secretary. She said that her car had been vandalised. What was the point of saying all that, unless she was saying that homosexuals and others who disagreed with her were doing those things to her? My car was vandalised last week, but I do not go around accusing people who hold an opposite view to mine of doing it. It would be completely erroneous to do so.
It is frightening and worrying that reports from, for example, the gay London group of young people show that there is an increase in attacks upon young gays and lesbians in our society. More of them are being beaten up and 20 per cent. have attempted suicide. Ten per cent. of them are thrown out of their homes and large numbers of them are homeless. Some of the arguments and language used in the debate, and some of the attitudes struck in it, promote intolerance towards homosexuals and lesbians, and should have no place in a modern society. We should not be doing that to people.
I found the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross frightening. He said that if a child went to a teacher and said that he wanted to steal or do something else bad the teacher would tell him not to, because one should not give in to feelings such as that. He even equated homosexuality with murder, if my notes are correct, and said that people should not give in to such feelings. I cannot understand how anyone who knows anything about law or society can possibly equate feelings of homosexuality or lesbianism with a desire to murder or steal. That is utterly ridiculous. It is all right, if one is heterosexual, to give vent to feelings and express them in any way that one wants. Such people may form any relationships that they want, and that is fine. But homosexuals must repress their feelings, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, because they are as undesirable as stealing, shoplifting or murder. That is an unbelievalbe argument.
Some Conservative Members, among them the hon. Member for Edgbaston, said that they were not concerned with reverting to the law as it was before and did not want to discriminate or make life difficult for homosexuals—they wanted only to protect children. The hon. Lady, who started all this, offered no evidence that children were in danger. When challenged, she has never been able to bring forward evidence, and none has been produced. If hon. Members are concerned on the basis of no evidence, they should not support the clause.

Mr. Marlow: It is late; I shall be brief; I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) invited me to speak. I apologise, but it would be ungracious of me not to accept his invitation. I know why he invited me to speak—he was hoping that I would make some injudicious comment that might help him in pursuance of his case. I hope and anticipate that I might disappoint him.
The first rule of politics is that one can make enemies but never friends. If we do something right, we are expected to do so; but, by and large, we will offend


someone. On that basis, I understand that many of my hon. Friends want to keep their heads down, and people have advised me to keep mine down on this issue. But there is a case to be made against what has been said by the Opposition.
Those of us who were here at the time were impressed by the articulation—if that is the right word—of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He made a speech, as he did three months ago, of great honesty and integrity, and we all respect the points that he made. But 1 feel that he was wrong in his basic premise and alarmist in some of his later remarks.
The hon. Gentleman's basic premise — I may be wrong—and the basic premise put by hon. Members on his side of the argument was that the hand is dealt. One is born either heterosexual or homosexual. There is another point of view, and I am not saying that it is right, either. That may happen to some people, but some people become homosexual. They are persuaded, converted or, dare I say it, seduced into becoming homosexuals. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may think he is right; other people may think they are right; but the reality may well be somewhere in between. We must all accept that that may be so.
The hon. Member is also wrong to say that the measure is anti-homosexual. It is not. There are real concerns among parents that if their children go to school there is a chance, on the argument I have advanced, that some people might seek to convert them from being heterosexual to being homosexual. If they have that concern, it is right and proper that the Government should take account of it. It is therefore right and proper that this amendment should be accepted by the Government.
The hon. Member for Copeland thinks that it is wrong that the Government should listen to public opinion and take account of it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong also to think that the amendment is anti-homosexual and that it is our desire to drive the homosexual community back into the closet. That is not right at all. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said. Homosexuals have friendships and lovers. They live together. They have a way of life. They are entitled to it. That is their life. It can be beautiful. Conservative Members respect that, too. We are not anti-homosexual, nor is the measure that my hon. Friend put forward.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a schoolteacher said what he has said about some homosexual relationships, he or she would quite probably be in contravention of the clause?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that in his speech. That is his view. My hon. Friend the Minister might refer to that in his winding-up speech. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is being alarmist in his interpretation of the measure.
One of the problems is that some Opposition Members have been alarmist and have misrepresented the matter, because they do not understand or believe in the measure or, perhaps, for political mischief. They have misrepresented what the Government are trying to do. They have had the effect of whipping up hysteria amongst the homosexual community—quite wrongly. The danger is that they will provoke members of the homosexual community into a reaction that will have a counter-effect — the danger that this provocation will cause public

opinion to move against homosexuality when it would otherwise not have done so. I caution Opposition Members not to be alarmist about the Government's measure. There is no need for alarm. The more alarmist they are, the worse the effect they will have.
The new clause constrains local authorities against intentionally promoting homosexuality or publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. We have heard semantic discussion by the hon. Member for Copeland. Really, does the hon. Gentleman wish intentionally to promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality through the local authorities that the Labour party controls? If he does, it might satisfy some members of the management committees of the Labour party but, by golly, it will turn off its supporters.

Mr. Pike: Having spoken in the debate on 15 December, I regret that, at this stage, Conservative Members have still failed to produce any evidence in support of the clause. The problem with tonight's debate is that we can consider only the Lords amendment and the amendments that have been tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We need to eliminate the clause from the Bill, but that is not our choice tonight.
If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) really believes that the Bill's objectives are limited solely as he described, he is mistaken. He must understand that many people have fears. Indeed, the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) clearly demonstrated their fears and reservations about the clause.
Conservative Members have not produced their evidence, but have used a lot of rumour and misinformation to put their case. Certainly there have been press reports that have never been substantiated as to the type of material that is claimed to have been used in schools, or the way in which that material has been used in schools. It is a question not simply of the material which has been referred to by Conservative Members in making their case but of the way in which that material has been used or has been intended to be used.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made.

Mr. Pike: It has to be said that frequently the material has not been used in the way described by hon. Members supporting the clause.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that there was a solid view on both sides of the House that we wished to protect children. He was absolutely right to say that. Of course we all wish children to be protected from sexual abuse, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We also wish to protect them from mental and physical abuse of any kind. There is no dispute whatsoever about that.
However, the amendment does not deal only with education, as some Conservative Members have claimed. Its scope goes way beyond that. If the protection of


children is the main criterion on which the Government wish to take action, the Local Government Bill is not the means by which they should do that.
In my last speech on this issue, I said that, if it were in the Local Government Bill, it would not apply to children being educated in the private sector. If one takes the Government's point of view and says that promoting homosexuality is totally wrong, effectively the clause is saying that it is all right in private education. If one accepted for a moment that there was a problem, and I do not, the amendment would not deal with it.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to instructions to teachers about teaching about homosexuality in a positive way. She objected to that. Teaching about homosexuality in a positive way is not telling people receiving education that they should be homosexual, gay or lesbian.
The hon. Lady really should examine the education guidelines in other fields such as religious education, which state that teachers should give a positive image of religions other than Christianity—such as the Hindu and Moslem religions. I am sure that those guidelines are not arguing that children should convert to those religions. It is right that they should be taught in a positive way about those religions so that they can understand them, just as we believe it is right that they should recognise that homosexuality exists, that people do not make a choice and that homosexuality should he recognised and fully understood.
In the last debate on this issue I referred to two letters which clearly made that case. One was from a teacher who expressed concern and doubt about the clause. I have had a number of such letters since that debate.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Pike: I have had a number of letters since that debate that have supported my argument and have expressed similar fears to those in the letter I quoted in that previous debate. I have received letters from teachers, youth workers and community workers expressing genuine fears about how they will be inhibited in dealing with problems. For example, a young person may think that he or she is gay or lesbian and want to be understood and given advice. Young people may feel that they are the only gay or lesbian people in the whole world and that there is no one else in that position. They want to be advised that it is not totally abnormal but quite common and that it can be accepted and fully understood. Such a person should have the opportunity to live his or her life in peace and freedom, just as a heterosexual person does.
10 pm
Having analysed the speeches by Ministers, including that made by the Minister in Committee, those in the Chamber and in the other House, it is clear that they believe that the clause will be interpreted in a narrow way and that our fears will not be fulfilled. If that is what they genuinely believe, they must recognise that, as I have said many times, interpretation of the clause once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament will be not for the House to determine, but for the courts. The courts will determine the word "promote" in a way which the Ministers do not.
I give Ministers the benefit of the doubt because I do not believe that they want to go as far as the way in which the wording may be interpreted if the Bill is carried.
I sent to the Minister a letter from a youth community worker in my constituency. I asked the Minister to meet me to discuss that letter because it summarised that youth community worker's feelings and fears about the way in which the clause will be interpreted.
The amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends should he carried because, like the Lords amendments that have gone through, they make at least some improvement to the situation. Even at this late stage, it might be advisable for the Government to say, "We have thought again. We have gone too far. We withdraw the clause and will send it hack to the Lords and ask that it be deleted from the Bill."

Mr. Dickens: This House should address itself first of all to the reason why the 90 per cent. majority of parents and grandparents in this country feel threatened and intimidated by the 10 per cent.
Back in 1967, when the Sexual Offences Act was introduced, we said that it was an Act of tolerance, compassion and understanding. I think that it will always so remain. However, it seemed to give the homosexual fraternity an opportunity to run gay clubs, gay centres and gay pubs that specialised in a homosexual clientele, where magazines could flourish and contacts be made, enticing and corrupting others to join their ranks who perhaps would never have done so.
Much more serious than that are the memories of grandparents who remember Cambridge in the 1930s, when the intellectuals of Cambridge—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must listen to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Dickens: I am not intimidated by the noise, Mr. Speaker. It is like addressing an audience from the stage of "La Cage Aux Folles". I should like to remind hon. Members of that well-known hymn "I am what I am", and this is no illusion.
I return to my point about Cambridge university in the 1930s. The so-called intellectuals of that time were latching on to every minority group in the hope of gaining power. Many of them flirted with Communism in exactly the same way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a place where we all express our opinions freely.

Mr. Dickens: Many of them flirted with Communism in exactly the same way—Conservative Members will agree with this—that the loony Left has attached itself with a sympathetic ear to the homosexuals to snare them into its ranks. That is something we must watch.
What is the homosexuals' shopping list and why do the 90 per cent. of society feel intimidated? They now want the age of consent to be lowered to 16 years if you please and they want spouses of the same sex to be allowed entry to the United Kingdom as immigrants. They even want to adopt children. Such is the path to be followed by the homosexuals. It is doing homosexuals no favour to flaunt their activities by marches and protests in our cities.
A few weeks ago I was debating this subject in the Oxford union — [Interruption.] I have to be fair. I listened to a speech by a student who opened the innings for the other side with a straight bat—[Laughter.] That


speech was one of the best and most moving that I have ever heard. That student was a self-confessed homosexual and he made a sincere speech. I am sure that those who were on my side of the argument were greatly touched by his contribution — [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.

Mr. Dickens: The homosexual fraternity should not expect too much from the 90 per cent. majority. There is no way in which that majority want homosexuality to be a subject on the school curriculum. My hon. Friends and I are determined that they will not get it. By the same token, people like me should stand shoulder to shoulder with the homosexual fraternity against the so-called "queer bashers". They are only likely to get that support if they stop continuing to flaunt their homosexuality and thrusting it down other people's throats.[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will all digest that. Mr. Livingstone. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Livingstone.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not aware that 90 per cent. of this House would like to hear more?

Mr. Livingstone: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) because he said that he is what he is. All we are asking is that he should allow other people to be what they are. The Bill will not allow that; it will reinforce discrimination.
I doubt whether people can remember their own early sexual experiences. Conservative Members have told us that there are points in time when one can go one way or the other, that a bit of pressure or persuasion can turn someone into a homosexual or, presumably, a heterosexual. Is there any hon. Member who can say that, at some point in their early years, they faced a conscious choice of whether to be homosexual or heterosexual? Of course not. We all know that that is nonsense. Our sex drives are there before we are aware of their existence—perhaps even before we can speak. We have to ensure that we do nothing in this House that makes it more difficult for people to give expression to their sexuality. Broadly, I support people's right to do whatever they choose as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or welfare of others.
10.15 pm
As well as some interesting early reminiscences, several bits of what has now become folklore have been invoked to support the clause. All that we hear is the repetition of vague innuendo. Again and again we have called for the name of one school that is teaching homosexuality. No Conservative Member has been able to name a single school in a county or city in this country that is doing what they claim is now so widespread that legislation is needed to stop it. I have listened carefully, and I have heard only three examples given to justify the clause. One was an article in the Evening Standard and one was an article in The Daily Telegraph. Since when did the legislature base legislation on two articles in newspapers? Before introducing detailed legislation affecting the lives of millions, should we not do a little better than to rely on what some journalist has cobbled together, regardless of whether it is accurate?
The only example given to justify the measure to which we should perhaps pay some attention is the third—a GLC publication "Changing the World". Hon. Members

say that all this has happened in the past 18 months. I speak with some authority when I say that it is almost two years since the GLC was abolished. I am sure that Conservative Members were delighted to advance my rapid appearance in this place by abolishing it—and I thank them for it.
If Conservative Members have copies of "Changing the World", they will see it for what it is. It is a result of two years of debate, discussion and research in which the lesbian and gay community in London came together to produce a list of 142 changes in legislation and administrative practice that would remove discrimination against them. The only one of those 142 recommendations referred to today was the one dealing with heterosexism.
There is a genuine misunderstanding here. Heterosexism as a term does not mean that we are opposed to heterosexuality or that we wish to discriminate against it. Heterosexism is exactly the same kind of term as racism or sexism. They all describe discrimination against a particular group or class or gender. Heterosexism is no more than a way of describing the institutional and legislative discrimination against homosexuals in our society. If anyone has misunderstood that, I apologise. If hon. Members have thought that those using the term "heterosexism" are in favour of discriminating against heterosexuals, I am sorry, but they are wrong.
I wish to deal with two points that call into question the sincerity of those who will vote for the measure tonight. There is a problem relating to the protection of children in our society. There is widespread and systematic abuse of children—perhaps beyond anything that we fear at present. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members saying "Rubbish." It is not on to argue that one is supporting the clause to protect children and then to reject out of hand the suggestion that there is widespread sexual abuse of children in our society.
Studies have been undertaken by centres and groups that provide support for those who have suffered from incest. Their works suggest that one child in 10 is sexually abused by a relative. Almost all these instances of abuse involve fathers and uncles within the family and they are directed against their sons, daughters or nephews. Conservative Members who may want proof of this assertion should be aware that the evidence to support it is more substantial and better documented than any of the arguments that we have heard Conservative Members advance in support of the clause.
I do not accept that the clause is a serious attempt to protect children. I believe that the Government are pandering to bigotry in the hope that that will produce votes.
There are instances of homosexual abuse of children, and I have brought the issue before the House four times since my election to it. Four times I have asked the Prime Minister to open an inquiry into one of the most appalling examples of the homosexual abuse of children in this century. On all those occasions, the Prime Minister has refused my request. The reason is simple. During the homosexual abuse of the children, MI5 was photographing the perpetrators so that it could blackmail the Loyalist politicians who were committing the acts.
If the Government are appalled by the buggery of children, why do they cover it up when it is carried out by one of the state agencies? Why is it that every attempt to raise this issue is stamped upon? [HON. MEMBERS:


"Proof."] Conservative Members ask for proof. Proof is available to the House if it is prepared to assert its right to see the MI5 files, including the photographs.
However much Conservative Members may try to prevent this issue emerging, enough is known now and enough people are now prepared to talk to make it inevitable that the proof will be revealed. How can any Conservative Member vote for the clause one day while refusing to investigate a well-documented case of homosexual child abuse the day before? That brings into question any claim of sincerity. It opens Conservative Members to the charge of the grossest hypocrisy. They are prepared to cover up homosexual child abuse when it is politically embarrassing for the Government of the day while stamping around Britain trying to stir up hatred against the gay and lesbian communities to try to gain votes.
The heterosexual community is not living in fear and intimidation as a result of any activities of the 10 per cent. of society that is homosexual. The people who live in fear are those who are killed in the most appalling way by the queer bashers in our society. There is a growing catalogue of the most horrifying incidents—no doubt egged on by the general climate of homophobia in the press and the media and on the Conservative Benches—where thugs have come out on to the streets to murder gay men.

Mr. Fairbairn: The activities of certain individuals, such as members of the IRA, whatever their sexual habits, are rather worse than anyone to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is going rather wide of the clause.

Mr. Livingstone: I condemn any act of violence wherever it takes place, as I condemn any act of child abuse, whoever commits it and whatever the individual's orientation.
I have one last abiding worry about some of the reasoning that lies behind the clause. The Conservative party whipped up homophobia in the run-up to the last general election and now it feels that it has to pander to the forces that it whipped up. When he was orchestrating the election campaign in the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made homosexuality an issue in the crudest and grossest way. I hope that he can live with his conscience because of what he has done to demean the lives of gay men and lesbians in Britain, as I hope other Conservative Members can live with their consciences every time another gay man is murdered by queer bashers.

Mr. Howard: It would be difficult to do full justice to all the varying qualities of this remarkable debate. Many of the contributions have been based, like the amendments to the Lords amendment, on a misapprehension of the nature and effect of the provisions which are before the House. That observation also applies to the campaign which has been waged against the provisions of the clause since the Bill left the House for another place.
I re-emphasise that it is no part of the Government's intention in supporting the provision to remove the rights of homosexuals to receive council services. As ratepayers and electors, they are entitled to access to council services

on the same basis as anyone else. There is nothing in the provision which would damage that right. Allegations that the provision would lead to censorship of the arts, stop activities in health care and counselling and prevent local authorities from granting entertainment licences are quite unfounded. I am happy that that was recognised.

Ms. Clare Short: I do not believe it.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady says that she does not believe it, but it was recognised by the Opposition spokesman in another place, the noble Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who on Third Reading accepted that the clause did not have the kind of restrictive effect which was feared by many, particularly in the artistic world, who had been so worried about it. Of course, he was speaking in sharp contrast to the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in making that point.

Mr. Tony Banks: This morning I got from Luke Rittner, the secretary general of the Arts Council, a statement which says that the Arts Council remains deeply concerned at the possible implications and effects of clause 28. The Minister has not satisfied the worries of the Arts Council.

Mr. Howard: No, we have not satisfied all the concerns, but those, including the Opposition spokesman, who have sat through all the debates in another place have a greater appreciation of the true effect and nature of the provisions than do some others who have been considering the matter from outside.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that, if a local authority makes a grant to an arts association to put on a play, let us say, about the life and times of Oscar Wilde, that would not fall foul of the cause of promoting homosexuality?
Mr. Howard: I find it a little hard to respond to such questions because, when I do, as I did in a letter to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred in his speech, I am told that nothing that I say is of any relevance because at the end it is all a matter for the courts. Indeed, it is, at the end of the day, a matter for the courts. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the assurances given by Ministers are worthless because at the end of the day the matters are for the courts, and in the next breath pop up with questions about the effect of the provisions.
The best answer that I can give to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that it is most unlikely that such an event would fall foul of the provisions. In order for it to fall foul of the provisions there would have to be a deliberate intention to promote homosexuality behind the act of the local authority in funding that performance. I think that it is most unlikely, in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that the event would fall foul of the provisions.
In a speech which was characterised by a schizophrenic approach, of which I shall have more to say in a moment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked for an assurance that we had no intention of extending the purport of the clause to other areas. I think that he specifically mentioned broadcasting and the Arts Council. I am not aware of any abuses in those spheres of the kind


which have given rise to the need for the clause. In those circumstances, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he has asked.
10.30 pm
Clause 28 was introduced because of the growing concern inside and outside Parliament about the use of ratepayers' money by some local authorities to promote homosexuality. In particular, there was real concern that local authorities were targeting some activities on young people inside and outside schools in an apparent endeavour to glamorise homosexuality. Not surprisingly, parents have become increasingly concerned about public money being used in that way to influence the attitudes and behaviour of impressionable young people.

Dr. Cunningham: If that is so, and all the evidence is in the Government's hands, why was clause 28 not in the Bill in the first place?

Mr. Howard: Many of the clauses were not in the Bill in the first place and we will consider some of those later. When the matter was brought forward by the sponsors, my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the Government shared their view that there could be no justification for local authorities using public money for that purpose.

Dr. Cunningham: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks, "Where is the evidence?" There is evidence. I have a list of the evidence. I will content myself with two examples. The first piece of evidence is the publication "Young, Gay and Proud." I have an excerpt from it here and it contains a most explicit description of homosexual activities. The Inner London education authority recommended it for children aged 13.
My second piece of evidence is from another publication called, curiously, "The milkman is on his way." That also contains very explicit and rather offensive descriptions of homosexual acts. ILEA recommended that publication for children aged 15. It was available for lending from the children's section of a library in the London borough of Haringey, and I have a copy of the sheet which shows that it was taken from the library and used on numerous occasions.
There is no doubt that there is evidence. There is equally no doubt that these activities have provoked considerable public disquiet.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howard: Not yet.
We believed that removing that source of disquiet would do much to alleviate the resentment that had undoubtedly been building up and that had been having a growing and adverse effect on tolerance and understanding.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How could the Minister's ministerial colleagues have advised the other place exactly one year before the Minister accepted a Conservative Back-Bench new clause that it should not accept an identically drafted clause because there was no need for legislation of that type and that the wording was dangerously vague?

Mr. Howard: if the hon. Gentleman studies the record closely he will find that the remarks made by my noble

Friend Lord Skelmersdale in another place were made about a draft of the clause that differed significantly from the form of the present clause. We must also consider what has happened since the remarks were made.
When the Bill started its passage last year it was passed without opposition in another place. It then came to this House and was prevented from passing into law by a filibuster waged by an Opposition Member who has since lost his seat. I believe that his filibuster was carried out on the last day that he was an hon. Member of this House.
In those circumstances, it is reasonable that the Government should have considered the views of another place and of this place and the way in which the wording of the clause differed from that referred to by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale. When the Bill was before Parliament, Government spokesmen made it clear that they were sympathetic to the intention behind the clause and, in the light of all those circumstances, acceded to the amendment brought forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and Spelthorne.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that, and I hear what the Minister says. But surely the Government have the same responsibility a year later to caution Parliament about wording that is vague and dangerous. No change in circumstances justifies a Government adopting dangerously wide definitions. Their duty, surely, is to ensure that definition accurately fulfils intention, and does not risk infringing other rights and liberties.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the vagueness of the wording. We are satisfied that the clause can be interpreted by the courts in a perfectly satisfactory way.
Let me now deal with the amendments made to the clause in another place. They have the effect of achieving greater clarity—the kind of clarity that I understood the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to desire.
Amendment No. 10 makes it explicit that the clause is concerned only with the intentional promotion of homosexuality by a local authority. Amendment No. 11 is consequential on that change. The alternative to deleting the words in question would have been a complex prohibition which, in essence, simply reinforced the effect of the basic prohibition. Amendment No. 12 is, we believe, a useful safeguard. It makes it clear that a court considering a challenge against a local authority would be required to consider all the circumstances of the case and come to a reasonable view on the basis of the evidence before it. It would not be sufficient for an authority simply to claim that its purpose was one thing, when it would be clear to any independent observer taking a reasonable view that that was not its only purpose.
Amendment No. 34 is a necessary amendment to the title of the Bill, which includes a reference to the prohibition of homosexuality by local authorities in clause 28.
Having made that background clear, let me deal with the two amendments proposed by the Opposition to the Lords amendments. They have been explained by the hon. Member for Copeland. The gulf between the words that he used and the effect of the amendments is almost as great as the gulf that opened up, in the course of the Opposition's consideration of the matter, between the view of the hon. Member for Copeland and that of his right


hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. When the matter first came before the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Copeland said that he would vote for the amendment that embodied the clause and that he hoped and expected that his hon. Friends would so the same. He spoke, it is true, of certain amendments that he intended to put down on Report, but he said that he would do nothing to change the first part of the clause, which states that a local authority shall not promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality. He did not wish to change what that said in any way, shape or form.
In the event, the Committee did not divide on the clause; it was accepted without a vote. That was in December. By the end of January, the Leader of the Opposition had taken an interest in the matter. He made a speech that was widely reported, in which he referred to
a pink triangle clause produced and supported by a bunch of bigots.
It must be very gratifying for the hon. Member for Copeland to know that his leader is willing to express his confidence in him in such resounding terms.
By February, Labour Campaign Briefing was telling the world:
Jack Cunningham and Labour's front bench have made plain their total opposition to Clause 28 … if it should become law Labour is committed to its repeal.
In my innocence, I always supposed that if one was totally opposed to a clause the appropriate thing to do was to vote against it. However, the Labour party takes a far more sophisticated approach to such matters. In the new Labour party, if one is totally opposed to something, the thing to do is to say that one supports it and will vote for it, refuse to divide in Committee and, when one's leader has declared one a bigot, to put out a piece of paper saying one is totally opposed to it. That is the extent of the humiliation to which the hon. Member for Copeland has been subjected by the leader of his party. It is against that background that the Opposition's amendments to the clause have to be considered.

Dr. Cunningham: That is a cheap misrepresentation of the position we have adopted from the beginning. We made it clear that we would be moving amendments to the clause. We did so on Report, we did so in the House of Lords, and we are doing so here. Will the Minister now address himself to some of the issues in the debate and to the fears and concerns of people?

Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.
I shall now deal with the amendments that have been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Ian Gow: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, will he please give way again to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend tempts me. As I have said, I have great sympathy with the position in which the hon. Member for Copeland finds himself.
The first of the amendments tabled by the Opposition, (e), would exempt from the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality
any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person.

Let me make it plain that it is no part of our intention in supporting this clause to affect the civil rights of any person. We are talking about the use of public money to give preferential treatment to certain people, activities and tendencies. The clause prevents discrimination in favour of a particular purpose—the promotion of homosexuality. Therefore, there is nothing in the clause that would give any local authority any justification for discrimination against homosexuals. To the extent that the Opposition's proposed amendment is aimed at making that clear, the amendment is unnecessary. The clause is already clear enough. Whatever the aim of the Opposition, the effect of what they are proposing is very different. Intentionally or otherwise, their proposal would enable local authorities to continue all the practices that the Government find so objectionable. Let me try to explain why.
Since the Opposition's amendment operates to exclude from the provisions of the clause action for certain purposes, we are, by definition only, considering those actions that could be affected by the clause. What are those actions? By definition, they must be actions intended to promote homosexuality. Therefore, a council would be able to do anything it wanted, if the amendment were accepted, provided that it could show that, as well as intending to promote homosexuality, it had the purpose of protecting the civil rights of some person. The plain fact is that it is quite unnecessary to promote homosexuality in order to protect anyone's civil rights.
The second amendment is equally, if not more, objectionable. If the Opposition's purpose is simply to say that what is not prohibited by the clause is not prohibited by the clause, it is unnecessary. Whatever their intentions, we have to look at what their drafting would achieve. It is the effect of their amendment that makes it completely unacceptable. It says that any action, however much it promotes homosexuality, is to be permitted if that action is necessary in the authority's view to provide a service for some other purpose. Therefore, any local authority that intended to get round the clause would simply have to show that in its view it was providing the service for some other reason as well as the promotion of homosexuality. We do not accept that a local authority cannot provide the services its ratepayers and electors require without promoting homosexuality. The Opposition appear to take an opposite view. Its amendment would allow a coach and horses to be driven through the prohibition. It has only to be considered in this way for the true nature of the amendment to become apparent.
10.45 pm
The clause has overwhelming public support. Many thousands of worried families in Britain have been concerned about the abuses that have taken place. I shall conclude my observations with a description of how that abuse has grown up. Before Labour Members react with outrage at what I am about to say, I caution them that the words that I am about to use are not mine. Some Labour councils, not all,
abused their powers. They took no account of the views of the majority of ordinary people. They launched and financed programmes to aid and abet homosexuality, lesbianism and other minority causes until they became the laughing-stock of the nation … Under the reselection system of Labour councils those minorities apply pressure well beyond their electoral strength. Councillors will be bound to bend the knee. 'Do as you are told, or else' is the theme that determines their reselection. So inevitably all the Labour groups and councils


will gradually be pressurised into promoting homosexual activity."—[official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1000.]
Those are the words of the noble Lord Mason of Barnsley, who, as Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the last Labour Cabinet, performed more distinguished service for this country than any of those Labour Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench have clone or are likely to do. There can be no better indication to the people of this country of the difference between the Labour party of 10 years ago and the Labour party of today and the gulf between the words of the noble Lord Mason and those that have come forth from the Opposition Front Bench during the debate on this clause.
For the reasons that I gave earlier, I urge the House to reject the amendments moved by the Opposition.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for their brave and courageous speeches, for standing up to the intentions of this clause and for standing against obtaining votes by bigotry, to which some of their colleagues are putting their names.
I have noticed a change among Conservative Members since the debates on Third Reading and Report. It is now being said, "The clause will not attack gay rights and the civil liberties of homosexuals; it will not prevent a lot of the funding by local authorities of gay groups and other organisations". Those are the same groups that Tories were attacking so vehemently on Third Reading and Report.
A massive campaign against the clause has been organised by the Arts Council, local government, the National Council for Civil Liberties and many other organisations. There was a march of 20,000 people in Manchester, at which there was no violence or arrests, protesting against this clause.
The approach that is now being adopted by Conservative Members is, "Gently, gently, offer faint praise and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." Those who try to use other people's bigotry to obtain votes are as bad as the bigots themselves.
The bigotry and prejudice still came through, even in the smooth Minister's speech, but he did not produce any evidence. It has always been verdict first and evidence second. He produced no evidence of abuse in schools and he did not name any schools. The Minister quoted one of the few sources that he has been able to quote throughout the Committee proceedings—the book, "Young, Gay and Proud", which he claimed is recommended by ILEA for children of 13. He knows that that is not true. It was put on a reading list for parents by ILEA advising parents of books that they might want to read if they wanted to understand their homosexual children. The Minister is about to intervene, as he did in Committee, and read from the sleeve of the book, which says:
Recommended for children of 13 and over.
That was the publisher's recommendation, nothing to do with ILEA, and it was on the reading list for adults. The Minister knows that.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman denying that in the reading list issued by ILEA against the title, "Young, Gay and Proud" there appear the words:

Its friendly, unpatronising and reassuring tone make it easy to read and very helpful for everyone—13-plus, staff and parents."?
Mr. Roberts: The Minister has quoted the publisher's notes about a book which was on a reading list for adults and was never recommended by ILEA for children. He gives the lie to his own misrepresentation.
Let me read a paragraph from a leaflet entitled "Understanding homosexuality". It says:
Medical evidence suggests that a person's sexual orientation is formed before the age of five. It is, therefore, unlikely that an adolescent could be turned into a homosexual by an occasional contact. But such a contact might bring to the fore an orientation which is already there but unrecognised. The realisation could put an end to a young person's confusion and unhappiness.

Hon. Members: Who wrote that?

Mr. Roberts: I guess that it is controversial literature. It was written and issued by the Mothers Union in 1983 and is still available today. But it will be caught by the clause if the Mothers Union is funded by local government.
The variety of organisations that may find themselves under attack once clause 28 becomes law is staggering. All they need is to be funded by the local authority. The Minister has made that clear in his speech. The Government will not discriminate against the civil liberties of gays, homosexuals and lesbians; they will just make sure that local authorities do not spend money on them, provide services for them and help and assist them. If that is not discrimination, what is?
Another pillar of the community, founded by ladies doing good works, is the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Last year, at its national conference, it voted to take account of lesbian and gay issues, oppose discrimination and, where possible, to recruit people who are homosexual to their management committees. Will the Government now turn on the citizens advice bureaux?
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that the Government were worried not just about schools, but the whole of local government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said that the clause was just about protecting children, but the Government have produced a clause that has nothing to do with protecting children. According to the advice of lawyers and many organisations, it will make illegal the provision of joint tenancies for persons seeking housing as open homosexuals. It will put in doubt the provision of social services advice and assistance to persons who are uncertain of their sexual orientation. It will put in doubt whether local authorities can refer people seeking advice to social services, and, via social services, to voluntary groups run by and for homosexuals, the provision of grants to students and student unions in higher education, the position of lesbian and gay societies, the stocking and display in public libraries of books and periodicals written by and for homosexuals and the financial support for gay and lesbian centres.
If that is not the case, why are Right-wing Conservative councillors in places like Manchester threatening that when the clause is enacted they will use it to take councillors to court to prevent such funding and activities? That is what is happening at the moment. Yet the Government say that they are against public money being spent for specific purposes. All those activities may,


depending on the circumstances and interpretation of the words "promoting homosexuality", be made illegal by the clause.
The Minister admits that he cannot say how the courts will interpret the word "promote" or the words "intentionally promote". The danger that he is putting the civil liberties of homosexual people in by promoting the clause is unbelievable.
The other week Elizabeth Taylor was asked on the Michael Aspel show why she got involved with raising money for AIDS research. She said that she was appalled by the silence from Hollywood. She said that homosexuality had become a taboo subject, and yet, as she put it,
Hollywood was built by homosexuals.
That is not true only of Hollywood; there are homosexuals everywhere. Homosexuality is a part of society. So why do people fear it so much? Is it because, as some Conservative Members said, people fear the abnormal? [Interruption.] In the case of the clause, we are talking about fear of abnormal relationships and families. That is what Conservative Members say exists.
But what is normal? Are single parents, step-parents, heterosexual couples living together, married couples without children, single sexually active heterosexuals and celibates normal? Is what the majority does normal? Most people who get married get divorced. Is that normal? Normal is hard to define. Morality is based not on what most people do but on what is acceptable. I find love, care and respect acceptable, and exploitation, bullying and unreasonable prejudice unacceptable.
The clause is unacceptable because it is based on unreasoned prejudice. It is a bullying tactic to push homosexuals back into secrecy. It exploits the fear of AIDS and the misinformation that has been whipped up around it. Fear of AIDS has whipped up prejudice against gay people and the Government are cashing in on that. To quote Tom Robinson,
The solution is simple. They could do it with ease—stop attacking the patients and attack the disease.
To listen to some Conservative Members one would think that homosexuals were going around proselytising and that homosexual images were being presented everywhere—especially by local authorities—to convert people. The opposite is true. Heterosexual images are used to sell everything from chocolate to cars. Exhibitions of homosexuality are discreet compared with those of heterosexuality, but Conservative Members think that because local authorities help gay groups, homosexuals and lesbians, everyone will suddenly be converted. What nonsense. What nonsense.
The hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Edgbaston—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Roberts: —want homosexuality to disappear, and do not want to know of its existence. The hon. Member for Edgbaston has opposed all sex education in schools for years. She would rather that any complication to do with sex disappeared. From the beginning, the Labour party has stood firmly—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Roberts: —against the Government's intention in the clause. My hon. Friends and I made it clear in Committee that we had seen the clause for the first time only briefly and did not know what the word "promote" meant — [Interruption.] If it means advocating homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality, we have not changed our position on that. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the clause does not discriminate in the way that the Government refuse to accept that it does.
If the Government do not seek to destroy the civil liberties of gay people, why will they not accept the amendment, which reads:
other than by any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person"?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech and departed for a moment from his pre-arranged rant, he would have known the answer to that question.

Mr. Roberts: If the Minister had listened to informed public opinion, or the National Council for Civil Liberties, or the associations of local authorities, he would have withdrawn the clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman, whose indignation about the proposal I accept, explain why when he, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Minister, other Committee Members and I were together in the Committee, we heard the following phrase, said on behalf of the Labour party:
I shall vote for the amendment and I hope and expect that my hon. Friends will do the same." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1213.]
That was for this clause as proposed and supported by the Government. Why the change?

Mr. Roberts: I just hope that the hon. Gentleman's party's campaign on the issue of gay rights — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question in my own way.
I just hope that the hon. Gentleman's campaign on the issue will be based on the speech that he made today and not on the kind of literature and gay rights campaign with which he and his party have been involved. A June 1987 general election leaflet, entitled "Bermondsey constituency Liberal focus leaflet in support of the Simon Hughes candidacy", states:
Labour's support for positive discrimination for gays is a key reason why Labour was not even fit to be the Opposition, let alone the Government.
It ill-behoves the victor of Bermondsey to lecture us about gay rights.
Homosexual people are ordinary people made extraordinary or different by other people's and Conservative Members' obsessive interest about what they might, and probably do not, do in bed. Conservative Members' obsession with sex makes me sick.

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way.
To quote Michael Cashman, Colin in "Eastenders", who spoke at the gay rights rally in Manchester, we could round up gay people, we could shoot them or gas them, but they will not go away. As long as men and women procreate, they will continue to create homosexuals, and there is nothing that we can do about it, even if Conservative Members want to.
I urge all those Conservative Members who claim that this is not a bigots' charter and that it is not against the civil liberties of gay and lesbian men and women to vote for our amendments.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 254.

Division No. 207]
[11.03 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Galbraith, Sam


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Alton, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beith, A. J.
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Haynes, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyes, Roland
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)s


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
John, Brynmor


Clay, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Clelland, David
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles


Corbett, Robin
Kilfedder, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Tom
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Macdonald, Calum A.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Fearn, Ronald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce





Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliott
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Squire, Robin


Nellist, Dave
Steel, Rt Hon David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Patchett, Terry
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L.
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wall, Pat


Prescott, John
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh. Andrew (Angus E)


Richardson, Jo
Welsh. Michael (Doncaster N)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Frank Cook and


Short, Clare
Mr. Tony Banks.


Skinner, Dennis



NOES


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Farr, Sir John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Favell, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus






Franks, Cecil
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Freeman, Roger
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


French, Douglas
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Gale, Roger
Hunter, Andrew


Gardiner, George
Irvine, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Jack, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Janman, Tim


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Jessel, Toby


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Gow, Ian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Key, Robert


Gregory, Conal
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Knapman, Roger


Grist, Ian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Ground, Patrick
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Grylls, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Knox, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Lang, Ian


Hannam, John
Latham, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Lee, John (Pendle)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Harris, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Haselhurst, Alan
Lilley, Peter


Hawkins, Christopher
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Hayes, Jerry
Lord, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Hayward, Robert
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
McCrindle, Robert


Heddle, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Maclean, David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Hind, Kenneth
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Madel, David


Holt, Richard
Maginnis, Ken


Hordern, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Howard, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mans, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Maples, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Marlow, Tony





Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Miller, Hal
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Mills, Iain
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Miscampbell, Norman
Ryder, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Monro, Sir Hector
Sayeed, Jonathan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shaw, David (Dover)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Moss, Malcolm
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Neale, Gerrard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Needham, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Neubert, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Page, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Paice, James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

New clause

ADDITIONAL PPOWERS FOR AUDITORS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 29, insert new clause—
. —(1) After section 25 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall he inserted the sections set out in Schedule [Sections to be inserted in Part III of Local Government Finance Act 1982] to this Act.
(2) In section 16 of that Act (auditor's right to obtain documents and information) for the words "for the purposes of the audit", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "for the purposes of his functions under this Act".
(3) This section and that Schedule shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) This section and that Schedule shall extend to England and Wales only.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 10, leave out 'two months' and insert 'one year'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 27, amendment (b) to Lords amendment 27, and Lords amendment 35.

Mr. Rooker: I sincerely apologise to the House for returning to the subject of local government, which is the purpose of the Bill, and delaying the House by seeking to debate, for the first time in the House of Commons, the new powers of the local authority auditors in relation to the new clause and schedule that was slipped into the Bill in the other place—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members whose interest in our proceedings is diminishing please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?

Mr. Rooker: I am well aware that local authority issues are pretty gripping to hon. Members, as is suggested by the interest in the Bill itself. Nevertheless, we want to go through some of the remaining Lords amendments simply because in the past the House has never had the opportunity to get from the Government the reasons for the new powers being given to the local authority auditors.
The changes involved in the part of the Bill relating to the local authority auditors are important structural changes to local government. There is no question about that. In fact, the argument that was deployed as a result of the Widdicombe report said that those changes should be made as part and parcel of a major change. We register our protest at the Government dealing piecemeal with this matter. On the one hand, the powers for the auditors are put in the Local Government Bill as Lords amendments, when powers which are similar to those of the local authority chief finance officers—again something with which the Widdicombe report dealt at length—are being put in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is known to all and sundry as the "poll tax" Bill, and which is still

upstairs in Committee. Therefore, in two different Bills two substantial changes to the structure of local government are being dealt with.
I allude to amendment (a) briefly. I do not want to go over all the issues that were raised in the Lords or through all the parts of the clause because I do not think that the House would be with me if I did. Basically, the purpose of amendment (a) is to put off the coming into force of the provisions that give new powers to the local authority auditors. We are seeking to put them off for one year instead of two months. The amendment provides an opportunity to criticise the Government for using the Local Government Bill as the legislative vehicle.
I wish to put on the record two simple and short points. First, there has been minimal parliamentary scrutiny of the new auditors' powers under the Bill. We must register that point. It is OK for Governments to find things that are technically wrong with a Bill at the last minute and to make changes in the Lords. That is fine and we accept that because it is part of the process of having two Chambers of parliament. However, the debate that has just taken five hours, took five hours only because that clause was slipped in at the end of the Committee stage. In fact, it was slipped in on the very last afternoon of the Committee stage when we had an agreement with the Government, which we were going to honour, about a finish date. It was not as though we could get any extra half days or an extra few hours. We make no complaint about that. However, that is why the promotion of homosexuality took up so much time on Report and so much time today.
Hon. Members have demonstrated that they believe that the issue of homosexuality is more important than the substance of the Bill—competitive tendering, contract compliance. That is the will of the House. It is no good any hon. Member complaining about the fact that I intend to spend only a few minutes on this amendment. I believe that those hon. Members who spent so much time debating clause 28 should also be made to vote on all the other amendments down for discussion. However that is not how this place works. I believe that what took place tonight was an abuse and should be stopped.
There was nothing to prevent the Government from including the auditors' powers in the Local Government Finance Bill. We would not have complained about that. By the time the Government inserted the clause relating to the new powers for auditors in the Local Government Bill in the other place the poll tax Bill had already had its Second Reading in this place. Hon. Members will remember that the whole thing was done before Christmas. It would have been possible to add new clauses to the poll tax Bill. After all, upstairs the Government have promoted almost 500 amendments to that Bill and 16 new clauses. There is much more to come. Today we had a statement that further clauses, schedules and amendments on important issues will be introduced to the poll tax Bill even after the guillotine motion.
The new powers of the auditors will go hand in hand with the new powers of local authority chief finance officers. Those new powers resulted from the Widdicombe report and they could have been included in the poll tax Bill. In that way those powers would have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As it is, those powers will not receive such scrutiny and I make no apology for that. The House cannot do its job properly until those hon. Members who are interested in local government, either for party political reasons or as a result of service in local


government, have the opportunity to scrutinise those matters properly. Indeed, there has been no opportunity for hon. Members to consider the implementation of the Widdicombe proposals.
I accept that, since the Minister's appointment in July, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and myself have been locked in Committee almost every day of the parliamentary week. We know what the Minister has been doing, but that means that he has not had the opportunity to sit back and take a long-term view of his responsibilities and what is in the pipeline as a result of reports upon which the Government may wish to legislate, with or without the support of the Opposition — we do not oppose everything.
The Minister should learn a lesson from this parliamentary fiasco. He should decide that the rest of the Widdicombe report should be put to the House of Commons as a coherent package. In that way the House would be able to consider those legislative proposals and give the package proper scrutiny. If the Minister takes that lesson on board I will not have spent the past five minutes in vain.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that the relationship between auditors and local authorities and the new powers of auditors are extremely important.
It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should be dealing with this matter on the basis of amendments that were moved by Ministers at a later stage when the Bill was in another place. That denied us the opportunity of dealing with such matters at an earlier stage when we were considering the Bill.
I should declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Although the provision applies only to England and Wales, the Scottish institute has an interest in audit functions generally; that is why I declare my interest.
It is nonsense to be giving additional powers in this Bill to auditors to act when they believe that a local authority may be about to behave illegally when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr pointed out, similar provisions in relation to chief financial officers are being dealt with in the Local Government Finance Bill. It is even greater nonsense given that the Minister in charge of this Bill in the Lords said on Report that the Lords intended to move amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill relating to chief financial officers and that there may then be consequential amendments to this Bill in the House of Lords.
We are dealing with essentially the same question here. Whatever view one takes of the merit of giving the powers, they relate to circumstances in which there may be reason to believe that a local authority may be acting illegally. Certain powers are given to chief financial officers in the Local Government Finance Bill and certain powers are given to auditors in this Bill, but the two matters are very closely related.
Neither the English nor the Scottish chartered accontants are happy with the proposals. The main reason for that is that it is not the function of an auditor, in a commercial concern or in a local authority, to monitor the

day-to-day activities of the organisation being audited. Therefore, in the normal course of his business, an auditor will not necessarily know that a local authority is behaving in a manner verging on illegality.
In my view there is no reason of principle for introducing the powers. However, if they are to be introduced, we need to ask how the auditor will get to know that the circumstances in which he is supposed to act have arisen. If he is to get to know because the chief financial officer supplies him with the information under the powers conferred in the Local Government Finance Bill, his responsibility will be restricted to some extent. If he will have to act only when the information is supplied to him, that at least makes a bit of practical sense, whatever the principle of the thing may be. However, if the auditor is to act on his own initiative, it is difficult to envisage how he will get to know that the circumstances have arisen in which he has been given power to act.
Even if the auditor acts only on the basis of information supplied by the chief financial officer, there will be problems. What happens if the chief financial officer takes the view that the authority may be behaving illegally but turns out to be wrong after the auditor has exercised the prohibition powers provided for in the amendment? What happens if the auditor then finds that he has caused the local authority expense? Will he be subject to claims for damages? And what happens if the chief financial officer was right in believing that an illegality was involved but the auditor took another view and did not act on his powers? If it is found that the chief financial officer is right and the auditor wrong, will the auditor be subject to action for negligence?
Those are important issues, on which I shall not elaborate at this time of night and at this stage in the Bill's proceedings. They demonstrate the close connection between the powers given to chief financial officers in the Local Government Finance Bill and the powers given to local authority auditors in this Bill. It is nonsense, and an offence to the House that these provisions are being dealt with in two Bills that are proceeding through the House simultaneously.
11.30 pm
The amendment that seeks to put power in the hands of the Audit Commission rather than in those of the local authorities has not been selected for debate. However, it is in line with the recommendations of the Widdicombe report and corresponds with the view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. If the Government wanted to introduce the procedure, it is a pity that they did not put it in the hands of the Audit Commission.
The Opposition amendments would improve what I consider to be a fundamentally misconceived provision. A delay of one year would enable the provisions in this Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill to be more sensibly co-ordinated and allow us to see the entire picture. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept that deferral. The argument that the auditors should act only when a significant sum is involved would seem to be one of common sense. I hope that the Government, on reflection, will be able to accept it.
My personal view is that the provisions in this part of the Bill are fundamentally misconceived. If the Government want to give additional powers to local authority auditors, they should not proceed in the way set


out in the clause. That which applies in England and Wales is not what applies in Scotland. I would not say that the Scottish procedure is entirely satisfactory—certainly it is not, from a local authority point of view—but it makes more sense than that which the Government seek to introduce.

Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said, the Government cannot even suggest that there has been proper consideration by Parliament of the issues that are before us. We are left with the impression that the Government are determined to bludgeon these provisions through the House.
The Government argue that they are concerned about the balancing of budgets, yet on this very day the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his statement and his actions on leasehold arrangements, has pre-empted the new clause, a provision that would empower the auditor to issue a prohibition order if he had reason to believe that the authority was about to take a decision or course of action that would lead to unlawful expenditure. The actions of the Secretary of State today have made the clause redundant.
The Government's argument is based also on the provisions that are contained in part IX of the Local Government Finance Bill. The Minister said, "It is a part of the new system of financing local government." After today's events, it seems that the system that the Government have introduced amounts to them saying, "Don't finance it at all." That is why the Government need to take swift action to extend auditors' powers. The phrase used was, "The need for a quick pre-emptive act." It is a classic case of: lest they may, prevent. That is not justice; it smacks of vindictiveness. That shows that the Government are out to get local authorities. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister meant on election night when she talked about the inner cities and said, "We shall get them next time." This is hardly a friendly amendment that can be wrapped up in a glossy brochure entitled "Action for Cities".

Mr. Irvine Patnick: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made cash available to support her statement. Sheffield has been given £50 million for an urban development corporation. There have been other initiatives over the past seven years. An urban development corporation has been set up in Sheffield and there will be others in other areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting, but I find it difficult to see any relevance to the matters before the House.

Mr. Battle: I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I were to reply that the amount put in matches in no way the amount taken out of local authorities for mainstream funding, which is a crucial issue. That is certainly the case in Leeds.
The amended clause would change fundamentally the role of the local government auditor not just to that of adjudicator or quasi-prosecutor, as the Widdicombe report put it, but to a much more active role. At present the auditor's powers are retrospective. In future the auditor will be asked to seek out unlawful acts. The Government say that these are pre-emptive powers to be used in anticipation of the accounts. That is a power to fix

the accounts in advance. Auditors will be Government monitors. Dare I suggest that they will be Ridley's eyes, or Marsham street spies? Once again: lest they may, prevent.
The amended clause would give power to lay a prohibition order on to put a stop notice on a local authority. No details have been given in the debate, and none were given in another place, about the procedure for the imposition of the stop notice. There were cursory references to guidelines. What does the Minister see as the guidelines, or will it be left to the Audit Commission to draw them up? What happens when the stop notice causes a local authority to break off a major contract and it is left wide open to paying damages? The auditor would be identified, but what about local authority? I am tempted to add that that in itself puts auditors in a potentially lethal position in regard to contract corruption.
The Government must accept in all natural justice fiat local authorities—in other words, the ratepayers—must be indemnified against loss. I look forward to the Minister's comments and reassurances on that. If the amended clause goes through, it will undermine the everyday working trust between auditors and local authority Officers. Who would be an auditor in those circumstances?
The auditors' professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, has challenged extension of their responsibilities. In a feature in Accountancy Age, the institute recommended that any legal powers to stop local authorities spending illegally should be vested in the Audit Commission and not in individual local authority auditors. It pointed out that there were other problems:
If the powers were to be invoked with any regularity they would soon become a costly and time-consuming obstacle to the conduct of local authorities' business and the auditors' other responsibilities.
I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to put off the introduction of these provisions which would give new powers to local authority auditors, particularly when other related legislation is being dealt with in the House. The Government should not hijack the Bill at the end of its journey through the House as the legislative vehicle for these provisions; they should use the Local Government Finance Bill. I urge the House to insist that the Government tackle the issue in that way.
This is another provision to undermine local authorities which is being slipped through Parliament by being tacked on at the end of a Bill. The Standing Committee has been prevented from considering in detail the statutory provision dealing with the powers of appointed auditors in relation to elected members. It verges on constitutional abuse and is another surreptitious shift of power to the centre. The Government are forcing it through the House without giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider it properly. That is an abuse of political power which is being used to bludgeon local authorities because their supporters have the political audacity to vote Labour.
If the Government are unable to desist from that politically vindictive strategy, can we appeal to them not to be so devious as to put the men and women who serve society as auditors into the heart of the conflict to carry out their dirty deeds? Auditors deserve to be treated fairly as independent public servants even if the Government cannot bring themselves to accept the legitimately and democratically elected Labour council. Although the


councils may differ politically from the Government, they are damned good public servants and they also deserve to be treated with political respect.

Mr. Michael Howard: That was an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). It would be difficult to extract from his remarks the fact that we are dealing with illegal conduct by local authorities, how that illegal conduct can be controlled and what the powers of the auditors should be in relation to that conduct. I had hoped that there would be common ground between the Labour party and the Government on this matter, because I assumed that Labour Members recognised that auditors should have proper powers to enable them to control illegal spending.

Mr. Rooker: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman nods. Although his amendment would delay the coming into force of the powers for a year, which is a little surprising if Labour Members share our view, his attitude falls far short of the language that has just been used by the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) commented on the fact that we are seeking to extend auditors' powers in this Bill instead of in the Local Government Finance Bill, alongside the new powers which it proposes for the chief finance officer. Those measures were foreshadowed in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" and are part of the new system of financing local government and making it more accountable to its electorate which is provided for in that Bill. The provisions concerning the powers of auditors in this Bill follow not from the Green Paper but derive from Widdicombe, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr recognised. We consulted on them separately, and I emphasise the fact that there has been proper consultation. The proposal has not been inflicted on Parliament without proper, thorough consultation, and the matter has been fully considered.
The powers of auditors are not part of an authority's financial administration, but they relate to the legal and regulatory framework in which authorities operate. The two measures are closely related, and we have taken and will be taking steps to ensure that they operate entirely consistently. The new powers for auditors stand on their own and are not dependent on the chief finance officer's powers. We believe that the powers should be introduced as quickly as possible, and I see no case for delaying their coming into force either until the Local Government Finance Bill reaches the statute book, or—this was the second point made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr—until we are ready to make an announcement on our attitude to the other measures recommended by the Widdicombe committee.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister give us an idea of the circumstances in which an auditor may detect that a local authority is likely to act illegally while the chief finance officer has not?

Mr. Howard: I was coming to that point. One of the main ways in which the auditor will obtain information will be from the chief finance officer, although one Lords

amendment amends section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to ensure that the auditor has access at any time to whatever information he needs for the purpose of exercising his new powers as well as his existing functions. We had the right hon. Gentleman's points well in mind, and we are providing the auditor with powers that he will need to provide information.

Mr. Millan: The Minister is not answering my point. It is not a question of providing the auditor with powers. In what circumstances will those powers be used where the chief finance officer has not detected that the local authority is acting, or is likely to act, illegally? It is difficult to conceive of such circumstances.

Mr. Howard: The auditor may have access to many sources of information, apart from the authority. The chief finance officer is an officer of the authority. The auditor will have access to other information—

Mr. Milian: Such as?

Mr. Howard: Any other sources. A member of the public or a member of the council may draw information to the attention of the auditor. But I do not suggest that that will be the ordinary way in which the auditor will obtain information. We are providing the auditor with powers to obtain the information that he needs. In many cases that information will come from the chief finance officer, but it is important that the auditor should have powers to enable effective action to be taken to control illegal activity and spending by local authorities.

Mr. Milan: Does the Minister understand that if the auditor received information which was not, for some extraordinary reason, available to the chief finance office, the obvious thing for the auditor to do in the first place would be to draw it to the attention of the chief finance officer so that he could exercise his power? I do not believe that the Minister really understands the way in which audits are carried out.

Mr. Howard: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the auditor will have to consider whether the circumstances are appropriate for the exercise of his own powers. He will consider the information that has been made available to him and make his decision in that context.

Mr. Millan: Without telling the chief finance officer?

Mr. Howard: No, not necessarily without telling the chief finance officer. I did not say that the chief finance officer would not be told.

Dr. Cunningham: If the auditor comes by some information from a member of the public or from some organisation, he would first have to verify the authenticity or otherwise of that information with the chief finance officer or the chief executive of the authority. The district auditor cannot he given powers to act on hearsay, gossip or innuendo; he can act only on matters of fact. The people able to verify those matters of fact would be the appropriate officers of the authority who, in all circumstances, will have far more accurate and full information than the district auditor.

Mr. Howard: I did not suggest that the auditor would act on hearsay. Of course he would not do that. We would expect him to verify any information that he had received


with the chief finance officer. However, there may be a difference of opinion between the auditor and the chief finance officer. The auditor may regard it appropriate to act in particular circumstances, but the chief finance officer might take a different view. As I said a few moments ago, the auditor has his own responsibilities and powers and his decisions must he taken on the basis of the information available to him in the context of his own powers.
The right hon. Member for Govan, who acknowledged that the auditor would be immune from suit so long as he acted in good faith, asked whether the auditor would be immune from suit if he did not take action against an authority when it subsequently became clear that action should have been taken. I confirm that the immunity that we are providing in the provision before the House will extend to conferring immunity on the auditor in those circumstances so long as he acts in good faith.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister tell us whether one of the factors that prompted this amendment at this late stage in the passage of the Bill was the recent experience in Southwark? The Minister will be aware that the district auditor recently issued notices against certain present and former councillors in the borough of Southwark. He will also be aware that the group of recipients of notices included 26 Labour councillors, past and present, one independent councillor, three Liberal councillors, two present and one past, and eight Conservative councillors. Later this month they will all give evidence to the district auditor and they all face disqualification and surcharge.
I believe that I am right to say that that will be the first time that any non-Labour councillors have faced disqualification and surcharge as the result of delaying the setting of a rate, which in Southwark's case dated from 1985. From reading the district auditor's conclusions it appears that the Conservative group, as much as any other, ignored advice from the council and from its officers.
An argument that we had during a debate on a private Member's Bill in February 1986 about disqualification and surcharge revealed that many of us, myself included, believed that there should be a power of pre-emptive action. Obviously, it is far better that intervention on behalf of ratepayers should take place early, when it looks as if something is going wrong, rather than its being left until much later after the event, when action to recover any loss will take years. The Southwark case is an example. The principle, therefore, strikes me as appropriate and worthy of support.
The only point that troubles me is one that was raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian). I think that the Minister may have misuderstood how the Widdicombe report, for instance, envisages that the powers will be used. The problem is not that the district auditor will be acting on information not available to the chief finance officer of a local authority. Experience suggests that the evidence of a chief finance officer is either that his or her advice may not be followed, or that he or she may not be certain about the result in law—as then perceived and adjudicated by the district officer — of certain actions of council members.
Clearly, what is necessary is an authoritative decision. Of course, the district auditor will have to go to the chief finance officer, because he will have all the figures; I

cannot imagine that anyone else will be similarly equipped. But the district auditor, surely, will be acting as the judical intervention, if that is thought appropriate. The merits of whether that will be achievable at notice of a few days or, at most, a week or two, are questionable. If an injunction could be sought whereby the district auditor could intervene—which is the effective aim of the amendment — that method of intervention would seem to be appropriate.
In Southwark, a meeting is taking place at this moment to set this year's rate. While we need powers for the auditor, or someone authoritative, to intervene at an early stage to protect the ratepayer, we also need to tidy up the system so that officers are equipped with the information and the basis of auditors' decisions and can give councillors accurate and authoritative information as early as possible.
Rather than base the law only on what is in the legislation, a better course may be to reflect a bit more on the proposal in the Widdicombe report—in conjunction with others—and to seek some form of declaration, as is available in other parts of the law, on exactly what is the duty of the council in a particular circumstance. Although the intention is clearly sensible, I feel that the clause may be somewhat otiose in practice.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the matters into which the district auditor for Southwark is currently inquiring. But one of the reasons why we think that the power contained in the provisions is so necessary is the frustration that is undoubtedly felt at the working of the present system. It takes a very long time for hearings to take place and for decisions to be made; meanwhile, the ratepayers see no investigation taking place.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I can add little to what I said a few moments ago to the right hon. Member for Govan. The powers of the district auditor and chief finance officer will not be the same, and will not be conterminous. The chief finance officer will have the power to put a stop on spending pending the meeting of the council, but if the council wishes to proceed it will be able to do so, notwithstanding any reservations that the chief finance officer may have.
On the other hand, the auditor will be able to obtain an order preventing the spending from taking place. Therefore, they are different powers. The auditor has more extensive powers and, in the Government's view, it is right that he should have those powers as soon as possible
For those reasons, I commend the Lords amendment to the House and invite the rejection of the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

Question put. That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 175.

Division No.208]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Dixon, Don


Clay, Bob
Doran, Frank


Clelland, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)






Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Cook and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Mowlam, Marjorie



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Franks, Cecil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths. Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim





Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Paice, James


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Patnick, Irvine


Key, Robert
Patten, Chris (Bath)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Pawsey, James


Knapman, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Portillo, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rathbone, Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Redwood, John


Lightbown, David
Renton, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lord, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maclean, David
Ryder, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mans, Keith
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Tony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Miller, Hal
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Needham, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Oppenheim, Phillip

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New clause

LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPANIES

Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 31, insert new clause—
.—(1) A local authority or relevant public body shall not enter into a contract under which a company which is associated with the authority or body is to carry out work falling within a defined activity, unless, before entering into that contract, the authority or body has taken reasonable steps for the purpose of securing competition for the carrying out of that work.
(2) For the purpose of this section a company is associated with a local authority or relevant public body if, by virtue of any decision of the authority or body (including that of any committee or sub-committee thereof in the course of discharging any function conferred upon them by virtue of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or, in relation to Scotland, section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973)—

(a) the authority or body, or
(b) any member or officer of the authority or body, or
(c) any nominee of the authority or body,

is a member either of the company or of another company, which, in accordance with section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, is the company's subsidiary or holding company.
(3) In this section—

(a) "defined activity" has the meaning assigned by section 2 above;


(b) "local authority" has the meaning assigned by subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section 1 above; and
(c) "relevant public body" means any authority or committee falling within paragraphs (e) to (j) of subsection (1) of section 1 above.

(4) This section (and, so far as is relevant for the purposes of the definitions in subsection (3) above, sections 1 and 2 above) shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th February 1988 and, accordingly, has effect in relation to contracts entered into on or after that day.

Read a Second time.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 17, leave out 'is a member' and insert
'form, whether separately or together, either—

(a) a majority of the officers of the company; or
(b) a majority of the shareholders'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in subsection (4) leave out '11th February 1988' and insert
'the date of royal assent'.

Dr. Cunningham: The Government apparently introduced the amendment to block a loophole which they thought they had identified in part I. They apparently believed that some authorities were contemplating setting up private companies to take over defined activities on long-term contracts with the local authorities before the relevant section of the Act comes into effect. If that happened it would have the effect of frustrating the timetable for the introduction of competitive tendering in such authorities.
We are not aware of what, if any, evidence the Government have in support of the change, although there have been press comments about some local authorities contemplating such action. However, local authorities and their associations are concerned at the introduction of the new clause because of its implications for possible future Government action on local authority companies generally. Moreover, if we are reading the clause correctly, it has some serious implications for the activities of voluntary organisations.
The Widdicombe committee considered the question of limited companies controlled by local authorities. Its general conclusion was that the case for such companies could he properly assessed only in the context of a detailed appraisal of the requirements of the service in question.
Nevertheless, it recommended that the law in relation to local authority-controlled companies should be amended first, to make clear that they may be set up only where there is specific enabling legislation, and, secondly, to incorporate safeguards concerning their articles of association, membership and audit and reporting arrangements.
In April last year, the Department of the Environment requested information from all local authorities on the Companies Act 1985 companies in which they had an interest. I understand that the Department is still seeking responses from some authorities to that questionnaire so the results of the survey were not available—as of a few days ago—to the Government, and they have shown no intention of following up the Widdicombe recommendations.
Subsection (2) is a highly prescriptive, rigorous definition of what might constitute
a company … associated with a local authority".

The impression is given that, whatever the institutional link with the authority, even if it consists of a single nominee on the board, the company is subject to undue and illegitimate influence from the authority. That seems rather draconian.
We recognise that the Government's intention to close a loophole in the Bill may be legitimate, but the subsection goes well beyond what we think is necessary. It is surely sufficient to require an authority not to have a controlling influence in a company, either through the majority of its officers or its shareholders. Beyond that, the new clause sets an unfortunate precedent by seeking to control the influence that an authority has over a company by regulating the membership of the company.
One must examine the objects, purposes and utility of a company, the non-local authority interests it may have, and other relevant matters. A good example of a company involved in one of the defined activities could be a voluntary body whose legal form was that of a company limited by guarantee. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations and other bodies are concerned about the implications of that sort of case. It is important that Parliament does not prejudge wider discussion and consideration of local authority companies on the basis of the Government's current perceived need to block a loophole that may exist in the Bill.
Examples of companies in which member authorities of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have interests are a company to run a multi-purpose arts centre, a company limited by guarantee, a charity, a company to make investments to promote the development of industry, the creation of jobs and job training in a borough, a regional tourist board, whose membership is spread among various local authorities, a company to advance public education in a subject such as archaeology within an authority's area, and the membership of a regional library association, which is a company limited by guarantee. There are other similar examples.
The key point about local authorities deciding to set up or participate in a company is the flexibility that that gives the authority. It is essential that companies should be able to operate speedily, confidentially, and with minimum bureaucracy, or the employment and economic advantages that have flowed from local authority companies involved in these activities might be nullified. If the Widdicombe recommendation that companies may be set up only when there is specific enabling legislation—a proposition that we would not be inclined to support—is accepted by the Government, either much of the employment and economic development activities of local authorities will be curtailed, or such specific legislation will be required. Such legislation must not be as highly prescriptive as the new clause about local authorities' interests in companies.
12.15 am
Here again, we have an example of a late addition of considerable significance being made to the Bill in the House of Lords. There has been no time properly to scrutinise the proposals in Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I seriously doubt whether debating these matters at this time and in these circumstances is an adequate scrutiny of powers.
Certainly, in addition to local authority concerns, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has advised


us of its anxieties. Many voluntary organisations have company status, as the Minister will recognise, although they are obviously not public limited companies such as profit-making concerns. Instead, many are limited by guarantee, bound not to make a profit, and subject to the Companies Act 1985. Therefore, the limitation of the clause to cover companies is not sufficiently precise to serve the Government's purposes and needs to be rewritten at least to include an exemption for companies that are voluntary organisations. The definition of voluntary organisation is taken from previous legislation.
Our understanding of the clause as presented leads us to believe that it will be harmful to the legitimate, effective—indeed, some would say necessary — and beneficial activities of local authorities, and harmful also to the legitimate and constructive activities of voluntary organisations, sometimes on their own account and sometimes in conjunction with local authorities. We know that from time to time voluntary oganisation companies have local authority representatives on them. In such circumstances, it seems that they would be caught by the legislation. That may not be the Government's intention. The Minister may be able to persuade us that that is not likely to be the case, but, for the moment, we believe that it is the case, and that is why we have tabled the amendments to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendments. Local government should be entitled to have discretion to make decisions about such matters. The amendments seem to achieve the sort of compromise that even the Minister should be able to find acceptable. They respect the interests of local authorities of all political persuasions which have shown a desire to be able to work not only with the voluntary sector, although it is important, but independently in the community, while recognising that independence, by making sure that there is no majority domination in such separate companies. I hope that the amendments are recognised as a reasonable compromise between total independence and total dependence on the commercial activities of local government, and that the Government will support them.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked for evidence to justify blocking the loophole. On this occasion, I am not sure whether I can give him much evidence.

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister did on the last occasion.

Mr. Howard: I did on the last occasion, but not on this occasion.
This is an attempt to close the stable door before the horse has bolted. The Government have received many reports. Local authorities were actively examining the possibility of setting up companies, consisting essentially of their existing direct labour organisations, to carry out work falling within the defined activities listed in the Bill. It seemed to us that, in some cases at least, developments of that kind were likely to be aimed at circumventing competition, rather than putting direct labour organisations into a fully commercial arm's-length relationship with their parent authorities.
No other provision in local government law requires competition prior to awarding work to a company when

the work consists of services of this kind. Therefore, the Lords amendment fills the gap in respect of defined activities. What it requires is hardly onerous. Authorities are to take reasonable steps to secure competition before entering into a contract with an associated company. An associated company is not just any company in which the authority holds shares, because that could apply to companies where the shareholding came about simply as a result of pension fund management. Association exists, therefore, only when the authority is a shareholder by virtue of a decision to that effect.
I cannot agree to the amendment further to restrict the definition of an authority so that the clause bites only when an authority and its members or officers hold a majority of a company's shares or form a majority of its officers. It is possible to exercise effective control without having a majority in either of those senses. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member for Copeland will recognise that.
It is imperative that such provision be retrospective to the date of its announcement, so I cannot accept amendment (b) which would delay its effect until Royal Assent.
As for voluntary bodies and charities, amendments (c) to (e), which were not selected, addressed those issues. I acknowledge that a number of voluntary bodies and charities are established as companies limited by guarantee and that in some cases the links between those bodies and local authorities are close enough to be caught by the new clause. In many cases, however, the authority provides a grant to the voluntary body, and that will not necessarily lead to a contractual relationship between the two. It certainly seems unlikely that many voluntary bodies will be entering into contracts with authorities to carry out defined activities such as refuse collection and street maintenance. The extent of the problem has been greatly exaggerated in some of the views that have been expressed.
I should emphasise that these amendments do not in any sense prejudge the wider question of regulating local authority companies generally. The new clause does not prejudge anything; it merely requires contracts for defined activities to be subject to competition where the local authority has a link with the company.
If there are examples of voluntary bodies which are associated companies entering into such contracts, the new clause would not make that impossible. It would mean only that authorities have to take steps to secure competition from other contractors. That does not seem a huge burden and it will provide a useful check on the value for money secured by using the voluntary body.
The term "voluntary organisation" covers a wide range of bodies. The definition that the Opposition proposed in amendment (d) encompassed wholly owned local authority companies which are not run for profit, which could well have been how authorities would have set up their direct labour organisations. Of course, amendment (d) would have driven a coach and horses through the new clause.
We have never considered the provision to be more than a modest measure likely to affect a small minority of authorities, and even then only by way of requiring financial prudence which should not reasonably he regarded as a burden by any self-respecting body. I shall therefore be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the two Opposition amendments to the new clause and to accept the clause as passed by the other place.

Dr. Cunningham: With the leave of the House. The Minister's response is not satisfactory. During the last debate he produced bad-natured and abusive representations in place of evidence. This time he freely confesses that he has no evidence at all to support the Government's proposals—as we suspected when we saw the proposals. Nor does his understanding of the implications accord with ours or, indeed, interesting and importantly, with the views of the local authority organisations or of the voluntary bodies themselves.
The voluntary organisations believe that the new clause would force voluntary organisations to tender for services that they currently provide for local communities. Invariably, those services are based on a joint concern on the part of the voluntary and statutory sectors to promote community development and the provision by local people of flexible services sensitive to local needs. That work is not prescribed by the Government, and in certain areas it is encouraged, but it could be threatened by the new clause.
Therefore, it seems clear that the broad brush approach of the Government is imprecise and dangerous. Even if a perceived loophole in the legislation makes the Government want to act without any evidence at all, that is bad enough. However, it is unsatisfactory that the innocent activities of voluntary bodies and the local authorities that provide them with their funds should be so threatened. It would be far better to write an exemption into the Bill and thereby remove the doubt. The meals-on-wheels service that is provided by voluntary organisations and companies limited by guarantee could be affected. It cannot be the Government's intention that such activities should be caught by draconian legislation. We shall invite the House to vote on our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 153.

Division No. 209]
[12.25 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
McCartney, Ian


Bradley, Keith
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McWilliam, John


Clay, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clelland, David
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cummings, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cunningham, Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
O'Brien, William


Doran, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foster, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Henderson, Doug
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wall, Pat





Wallace, James



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Ray Powell and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr Frank Haynes.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Holt, Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Michael


Amess, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Amos, Alan
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Ashby, David
Hunter, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Irvine, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Jack, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Knapman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bowis, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knowles, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bright, Graham
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lightbown, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Butler, Chris
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Carttiss, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mans, Keith


Conway, Derek
Marlow, Tony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cran, James
Miller, Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Iain


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Day, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Dickens, Geoffrey
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Durant, Tony
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Farr, Sir John
Patnick, Irvine


Forman, Nigel
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Portillo, Michael


Gale, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Rathbone, Tim


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Ground, Patrick
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Herris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayward, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

COMMUTATION OF SMALLHOLDINGS PAYMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 33, insert new clause—
.Any annual or other periodic payments under the terms of any settlement in respect of amounts payable under section 27 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 which, apart from this section, would fall to be made to a county council or district council by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State may be commuted by him into a single payment, either by agreement with that council or, in default of agreement, by an order made by him in that behalf.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause will enable Agriculture Ministers in England and Wales to commute into a single payment, either by agreement with the individual councils or, in default of agreement, by order, payments made under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 for the losses they incurred in first establishing smallholding estates for the settlement of demobilised ex-service men after the first world war.
Payments are currently made in half-yearly instalments on a diminishing scale. It is generally recognised that commutation of those payments would be an administrative convenience.

Mr. Roger Gale: The House will recall that when we last debated this matter I said that I hoped that the other place would show a little more sense than we had demonstrated at that time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled in the other place.
There are five prerequisites for a registration scheme—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause

DOG REGISTRATION SCHEME

Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 33, insert new clause—
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme by local authorities, or such other organisations as he may, after consulting with them, designate.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17, 36 and 37 and amendment (a).

Mr. Chope: Each of the amendments seeks to improve the already extensive range of legislation that relates to the control and welfare of dogs. The first gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to introduce a dog registration scheme, the second gives powers to local authorities to deal with stray dogs.
The new clause which is the subject of amendment No. 16 was inserted in the Bill despite our strong reservations about the cost and effectiveness of a dog registration scheme. At present, we simply do not see how registration would add anything to existing legislation. However, we do not want to delay Royal Assent by having unnecessary argument with the other place and we are therefore content to accept the amendment.

Mr. Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend makes this momentous decision, I wonder whether he understands the reasons why dog licences were introduced in the first place. They were introduced in the middle of the last century because there was a major criminal trade in stealing and selling dogs in London. As late as 1889, my father came to London—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] Yes, he did. He was prevented from bringing his terrier to London because he was told by his father that there were men in London who stole dogs. He made the observation that looking out of the bus he did not see any men stealing dogs.
That is why dog licences were introduced. It had nothing to do with paying for dog wardens, the licensing or registering of dogs or anything else. If someone could not produce a licence, it proved that the dog was stolen. As that criminal purpose has been succeeded by worse, I do not see the point of having licences of any kind at all.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving us that insight into the reason why the licence was introduced in the first place.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: My hon. Friend will recall the debate that we had on dog licences before the Bill went to another place. I think that it is probably fair to say that if the Government accept the amendments they are going back on the arguments that they presented to the House only a few weeks ago. I hope that I have interpreted my hon. Friends remarks correctly. I understood him to say that the only reason why the Government are accepting the amendments is that they do not want to have to send the bill back to the Lords. Can my hon. Friend give us a specific assurance that the new clause will not be implemented during the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. Chope: The Government have no intention of using the powers under the new clause but no Government can bind their successor.
Amendment No. 17 deals with stray dogs. At present, the police have powers to seize, detain and dispose of stray dogs. Local authorities in Scotland have similar powers, in parallel with the police, under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, while about 100 local authorities in England and Wales have taken the same powers under local Acts. In Committee, we undertook to consider extending this power to all authorities without the need for them to resort to separate, primary legislation.
Consultation with local authority associations indicated general support in principle. I should also stress that the police will retain their existing powers to deal with stray dogs. This is essential because there are areas, such as motorways, where it is only the police who are in a position to take any necessary action.
The powers that will become available to local authorities will enable dog wardens appointed by them to seize stray dogs and detain them until claimed by their owners, who will he required to pay all costs incurred in their detention. If the owner of a stray is identified, a notice must be served on him in writing saying that the dog has been seized, and that it will be sold or destroyed if not claimed within seven days. If a dog remains unclaimed after seven days, it may either be sold or destroyed in a manner to cause as little pain as possible. Authorities which choose to exercise this power will be required to maintain a register of stray dogs that they seize.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I welcome the fact that for amazing reasons the Minister has accepted these amendments. It is somewhat paradoxical that earlier today the Secretary of State urged the House to reject the Lords amendments relating to disabled people, he is presumably willing to incur delay and disagreement between the two Houses over that. However, the Minister's only substantive reason for not wanting to disagree with the Lords in this instance is that he does not want to incur delay and disagreement, having already done so on a matter that is arguably of greater importance.
12.45 am
Putting that to one side, we are left with the Government agreeing to accept the Lords amendment while saying that they will not implement it. I hope that the Minister will accept that he should have a little more grace in accepting that the Lords have overturned the Government on this issue, they having been given considerable encouragement to do so in this place when we last debated the matter. It was argued that at least there should be a registration system, if not a licence, and that is what amendment No. 16 provides.

Mr. Fairhairn: There is in that well-known Liberal newspaper, The Scotsman, a headline to the effect, "Support for the Alliance Plummets". Can the hon. Gentleman advise the House what an alliance plummet is and tell us whether it is covered by the registration scheme?

Mr. Hughes: Whatever the support at present, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in leaving the party of the hon. and learned Gentleman a long way behind before long. Its support in Scotland has been plummeting for some years, not least because of local government legislation, of which the Bill is an obvious example. I guess that the more the Scots hear of the Bill the more likely it is that support for the Conservative party in Scotland will plummet.
I am glad that the Minister has decided to accept the amendment that I moved when the Bill was last before us. As he knows, the proposal to tidy up the law on stray dogs emanated from the Association of County Councils, which argued that often the police did not want to have responsibility for dealing with stray dogs, whereas the local authority did and was willing to exercise it. The only concern is that local authorities are not yet to receive any more money for the responsibility of dealing with strays.
To direct a new responsibility and to provide no extra money for discharging it is a tradition with the Government, but that does not mean that it is satisfactory. It is accepted that stray dogs pose a substantial problem, and accordingly the necessary resources should be provided. We are saying that it should be made clear in any given area whether the police or the local authority have primary responsibility.
The Minister said that the police may want to retain responsibility for dealing with stray dogs in the vicinity of motorways, but experience suggests that it may he better to transfer primary responsibility from the police to local authorities, which have other enforcement responsibilities under this sort of legislation. They should be able to retain their environmental control and responsibility.
The Government's acceptance of the amendments is welcome but I seek to push the Minister a little further along the lines of amendment (a). Having accepted the undesirable prospect, for him, of accepting amendment No. 16 and overturning Government policy, I ask him to accept the implications of that and to ensure that the scheme that will be written into the Bill will be implemented to curb the nuisance that dogs can cause. I ask him to provide local authorities with the resources to ensure that dogs are less of a nuisance environmentally, more under control and generally looked after more responsibly by local authorities on behalf of the local community.

Mr. Gale: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit!

Mr. Gale: I apologise for my eagerness in seeking to speak early in the debate.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has accepted the amendment. It would have been kinder to the House if he had accepted it rather more gracefully and had said that he would be willing to consider implementation. As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted a few moments ago, there are five ingredients in a registration scheme—that a dog should have a national identification, that the number should be carried by the dog at all times, that there should he one legally responsible keeper, tha the scheme should be self-financing and that the scheme must assist in the financing of local authority dog warden schemes. I add a sixth—that, so far as humanly possible, the Government should have no involvement in it.
A few days ago, a representative of the National Farmers Union, one of the organisations which support a registration scheme, took the trouble to visit the Wood Green animal shelter, which serves as a model for a national registration scheme. I ask my hon. Friend to consider an invitation to that animal shelter to see for himself the manner in which the registration scheme has been implemented. If, after a visit, we can convince him that it is a practical working scheme, he should consider the implementation of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Cryer: I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on the wording of the new clause which says:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme".
Although it is permissive, I hope that the Minister, if approached by a local authority, will consider the scheme put forward. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. It


appears that the Minister will tell the House that under no circumstances will the Government approve a scheme which is put forward by a local authority and that a local authority would be wasting its time and official power in drawing up a scheme. Local authorities should know, because they are being squeezed in every way by the Government as they are trampled on by every legalistic and other influential means which the Government can muster.
There is no point in local authorities wasting the valuable time of officials in producing schemes if the Government intend once more to kick them in the teeth, although the amendment is being accepted by the Government and was voted for in the House of Lords. It is the Government who place such emphasis on the importance of the House of Lords as the second part of the legislature. Then they turn round and say to the Lords in effect, "Get lost, because, whatever you do, we will take no notice of it. Although the powers will be there, we will say to local authorities that we will not exercise them." That seems to be flying in the face of the spirit of the amendment which the Lords — the body which the Government defend to the hilt—have made and have sent here for our consideration.
When the Bill was considered before in the House, there was a great deal of support for a dog registration scheme. I outlined various considerations, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the House, in support of a scheme. I pointed out that a number of my constituents had written to me. One woman could not take her children into a park because of stray dogs ganging up, roaming round and, as she thought, placing her children at risk. Of course, there was also the problem of the dogs fouling the footpaths and the grass so that it was difficult for her to take her children to play freely in the park without the dangerous, offensive and messy business of the children being fouled by dog excreta.
I mentioned too the headmaster in my constituency who took home a small boy who was suffering from ill health. When he got to the house a Doberman pinscher set about the headmaster. The dog literally had to be dragged off and was subsequently killed. The vet who attended said that that breed of dog was extremely difficult to deal with because often they were untrained and were hard to control. The dog attacked the headmaster so savagely that he was off work for several weeks. The police took no action. The police informed me that there is no legislation under which, once the dog is killed, they can take action against an owner. They cannot take him to court to bring a dangerous dog under control because the dog has gone.
That omission in legislation should be rectified. The dog that was killed has been replaced—[Interruption.] The portly hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is so fond of making sedentary interventions, finds all this very amusing. But ordinary people live in fairly modest houses, not the jazzed-up mansion that I imagine he inhabits—with his many suits. That is in stark contrast to the terraced houses in which many of our constituents live, and parents in such houses dare not let their children out because of dogs roaming loose.
I believe that a dog registration scheme is needed so that we can have some control over dogs that are not properly looked after. There is no bone of contention with owners who look after their animals. There would be no problems

if everyone was of good will, care and devotion and looked after their dogs well. The problem is that not everyone does. When they do not, it is not the fault of the dogs, but the consequences are visited upon perfectly respectable, law-abiding citizens.
One such example is a constituent with a six-month-old baby who lives near a house where three Doberman pinschers or rottweilers are allowed to roam loose in the garden — [Interruption.] Perhaps the Conservative Members who find this so funny would put up their hands if they would like a six-month-old baby to be lying in its pram in the garden with those three dogs roaming loose next door. Of course they would not. It is a potential danger, and the dogs have already leapt over the fence. Parents must have some assurances.
Bradford runs a perfectly good dog warden scheme, but it is not on call when an immediate problem arises. It rounds up stray dogs and helps to contain the problem, but it does not have the facilities to cope. Bradford, like every other local authority, has many more matters on which to spend money and, inevitably, the problem of stray dogs has a lower priority. The dog registration scheme proposed by the House of Lords would be useful if the Government—

Mr. Ridley: How?

Mr. Cryer: If there was a fee for registration, the income could be used to extend the scheme. The Secretary of State cannot be so blasé as not to be aware that local authorities are short of money. They must provide education, housing, roads and all the rest, and the dog warden service must have a lower priority.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Conservative Members take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, as we did when he ably presented his amendment last time. But neither then nor now do I see the relevance of registration. I do not believe that that rottweiler would have acted differently had it been registered. I do not understand what difference it would make.

1 am

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been doing some analysis, and he will realise that dogs cannot read the registration document and would not behave differently. But without a registration scheme, the presence of three rottweilers or Doberman pinschers would be brought to the attention of the authorities only when an accident occurred. If an adult is bitten, it may be an inconvenience and it may be painful. If a child is bitten, depending on the age, it could be fatal. Then people will say, "Goodness gracious, we have some dangerous dogs at 24 Acacia avenue." Without a dog registration scheme, it would be impossible to know that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Of course it would be impossible for anyone to take remedial action.
The police do not take remedial action. That action is provided by the dog warden service, but only when complaints are made. If the local authority operates a dog registration scheme, the authority will be able to help people to look after dogs and provide them with guidance. The authority representative would be able to tell owners that they should have decent premises and that they should not keep three dangerous dogs tied up all day while they are at work. The authority can explain that if owners do not provide the dogs with exercise, they should not be


staggered when the dogs behave in what might be termed an anti-social manner when they are released. It is simply a matter of help and guidance for owners who do not look after their dogs.
If Conservative Members believe that some dog owners do not look after their dogs, then they recognise reality. However, if they believe that all dog owners, at all times, supervise, train and exercise their dogs with complete dedication, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. That simply is not the case.
The scheme that has come from another place is useful. It is not as good as the scheme that I proposed in an amendment which was designed to help dog owners provide better guidance and better care for dogs and at the same time would have provided better care for the public. Those are reasonable aims.
I cannot understand the Minister's obdurate refusal to accept the provision. It fits in perfectly with his philosophy, which is not for collective provision out of general taxation revenue, but for specific charges. Where people use facilities, the Government argue that they should be charged because that is much closer to the philosophy of the market place. The Minister has been obdurate; perhaps that results from the fact that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State glowers at him constantly. I suppose that that is enough to frighten most reasonable people in the Conservative party.
However, the Minister has not provided a philosophical reason to tell local authorities, "We've got the legislation. It's come from the place we revere." Truth to tell, most members of the Conservative party try to get into the other place at some point in their lives—

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: And one or two Labour Members.

Mr. Cryer: Another sedentary intervention. Of course one or two Labour Members try to get to another place, but they are, thank God, a minority. The majority of Conservatives dedicate their political careers to reaching the other place. Yet when it comes to producing a tiny piece of sensible legislation, the Government obdurately refuse even to consider implementing it. That is a matter of deep regret.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Minister's grudging acceptance of the amendments from another place will be a gross disappointment for many people inside and outside the House who strongly believe that a registration scheme would help. Now that they see that such a scheme is approaching the statute book, they will not be satisfied for it to remain a dead letter. They will constantly press hon. Members to remind my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues that the provisions exist and should be used.
Even after my hon. Friend the Minister's earlier comments, I urge him to reconsider the possibility of looking closely at schemes produced by local authorities and, as the clause seems to suggest, bodies other than local authorities which might administer such a scheme.
If proposals are brought forward, if people make the effort to produce them, they deserve the care and attention that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues can give them. I commend the amendments and trust that they are the forerunners of action on the registration of dogs.

Mr. Pike: I will be very brief because I do not want to delay the House. I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment that considered the question of dog licences on several occasions, and I am aware that some pressure must have been brought to bear on the Government to deal with the present crazy situation in which we spend far more collecting the licence fee than we receive. I also want to speak from my experience in Burnley about banning dogs in a few parks.
I am well aware of the controversy that can arise on issues affecting dogs. I believe that the present licence system is stupid and crazy and cannot go on, but what we are to do if we do not abolish it is a different issue. Speaking, as I say from local government experience, I feel that we should have reservations about allowing local authorities to determine the fixing of a local fee in any registration scheme. That is quite contrary to my normal stance, which is to disagree with the Government taking powers away from local authorities. However, I recognise the difficulties that will be caused—difficulties out of all proportion to the decision involved.
I believe that there is a case for a national registration scheme, with a fixed fee at national level to be operated by every local authority. The provision introduced by the Lords for the Secretary of State to consult with a view to setting up such a scheme should not be ignored. It was somewhat regrettable that the Minister implied that the Government would accept the amendment but take no notice of it and hold no consultations. Perhaps at the end of such consultations the Government would say that the scheme was not a goer; nevertheless, I feel that they should look at it.
The Association of District Councils has expressed the view that the amendment is worth while and should be pursued. I am sure that many other hon. Members will also have received a letter from Michael Ashley, the assistant secretary with responsibility for community services, who writes:
The ADC gave support to the amendment and believes that a registration scheme with a once-only fee of about £15 will meet the objective of getting dog owners to take their responsibilities seriously and enable district councils to provide an effective dog warden service.
I think that those two points are worthy of consideration and consultation. I do not disagree with the Government's line on the amendment, but I hope that they will be a bit more positive, that there will be some genuine consultation and that a scheme can be set up that will allow local authorities to deal better with the problems of dogs.

Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their sagacity in accepting the amendment. The last time that this issue was debated in the House, there was something of a punch-up and a small revolt on this side of the Chamber. Their Lordships, in their wisdom, have introduced this amendment, and the Government, in their wisdom, have come to understand the will of both Houses of Parliament and have now accepted the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend, despite what he has said this evening and his lack of enthusiasm, will come forward with an order before too long.
The amendment, as I understand it, will allow local authorities to introduce schemes for registering dogs and raising funds that they will be able to spend on schemes for the control and welfare of dogs within their individual


local authority areas. I imagine that the limits on the amount that can be raised will be set by central Government.
Many of my hon. Friends rightly have a horror of bureaucracy, and I have a horror of it as well. But I put it to my hon. Friends that in some parts of the country—in the urban and inner-city areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—there is a real problem of dog noise, dog nuisance, dog disease and swarms of dogs roaming the streets. In those areas it is probably the strongest local problem that comes to Members of Parliament. My area is not as deprived as that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South but I receive a great deal of correspondence on the problem of dog nuisance and there is very little that we can do about it at the moment.
The Lords amendments will allow a dedicated source of funds to provide wardens to deal with this very real problem that disfigures so many of our inner city areas. At the moment, we are introducing schemes for local government finance which will make it more difficult for the areas represented by Labour Members to raise and spend money. The last thing they will do when they are being squeezed of finance, which they will be—I am not against that—is seek to spend what little money they have on dog warden schemes. The order, if introduced, will allow a special sum of money to be used to address the problem; otherwise nothing will happen.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this issue, to look at it symathetically and, hopefully, to come forward with an order. The great beauty of this amendment is that in the past, to do anything about this problem, we have required primary legislation, a dogs Bill. No Government would gird themselves up against the opposition they would meet. People would say that it was a trivial measure. It would be putting their head in the dog's mouth, and no Government would risk that because they would get their head bitten off. However, an order, late at night, which could introduce exactly the same legislation is sexy and exciting. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to let us have one quickly.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about anything. However, there is an overwhelming case for having a national dog licensing scheme set at a reasonable rate in order to provide funds to enable local authorities to provide the services that are required.
I was a little disturbed to hear what the Minister said this evening. He agreed to the amendment but said that there is no intention of implementing it in England and Wales. However, two Secretaries of State are referred to in the Bill. Since a Minister from the Scottish Office is sitting on the Government Front Bench and since there will be scope for introducing separate orders affecting Scotland, it would be useful if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) could give us some indication as to whether it would be possible, or, indeed whether it is likely, that the Scottish Office would be prepared to introduce an order to enable local authorities in Scotland to introduce licensing schemes on

the basis of the Lords amendment, which seems to be a constructive one. I hope that it will not remain a dead letter.

Mr. Chope: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The Lords amendment gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. It does not require him to do so. I can understand that some hon. Members may have wished the amendment to say that it should require my right hon. Friend to make regulations but that is not what it provides. It is perfectly right and proper that we should be open with the House and say that the Government have no intention whatsoever of making the regulations and exercising the power being given by the amendment.

Mr. Marlow: Having listened to the debate, can my hon. Friend say why the Government have no intention of doing that?

Mr. Chope: Yes, I can say why the Government have no intention of making the regulations. There are two separate rationales put forward in favour of a registration scheme. The first is to raise money for local authorities in order to enable them to exercise greater control over dogs in their area. In effect, that would be to go back to a dog licensing scheme, which we have abolished by the Bill. The alternative rationale for dog registration would be to improve the identification of dogs that commit offences. That point was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
The hon. Gentleman told a story about a Doberman pinscher. There is no way in which a registration scheme would have resolved that problem. He told the House that the dog was apprehended and put down because it was so unruly. Under the law as it is now, anyone may complain to the magistrates court that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and the court may order that it should be kept under proper control or be destroyed. Therefore, massive powers are already available.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made a good and clear speech. He said that, if there were a dog registration scheme and a system of dog wardens, the dog wardens would know where these large dogs were and when there were two or three large dogs in a house. The dog registration scheme would enable dog wardens to provide advice and assistance to people owning those dogs. What my hon. Friend the Minister has just said is not correct.

Mr. Chope: rose—

Mr. Cryer: In addition to the location of dogs, dog wardens would advise and guide dog owners. Dog experts have pointed out that there has been growth in the use and breeding of large and savage dogs such as rottweilers and Doberman pinschers. Owners often buy such dogs without any proper knowledge. They do not know about training, housing, feeding or controlling them. As I made abundantly clear, the dog registration scheme would offer advice and help to dog owners.

Mr. Chope: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter; he takes a very paternalistic view about dog owners. Many measures are already available to local authorities, the police and other individuals to deal with dogs.
Those who argued in favour of a dog registration scheme assume that it would be easy to register all dogs and to maintain and enforce the register. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) say that a registration scheme would be a practical possibility, because he and some of his hon. Friends have been arguing for many hours in Committee that the much simpler and more straightforward process of registering for the community charge will be so fiendishly complicated, so easily avoided and so difficult to enforce that it is not worth introducing. The community charge registration scheme will be straightforward and easy. However, a registration scheme for dogs would be a lot more complicated than the community charge registration scheme.

Mr. Pike: On reflection, I am sure that the Minister will agree that his comparison is completely irrelevant. If the registration of dogs were to be agreed, the system would be quite different from a poll tax that has a rolling register, that will change every day. I am sure that the Minister is making a false comparison.

Mr. Howard: What about student dogs?

Mr. Chope: My hon. and learned Friend mentions the problem of student dogs, but I do not want to get involved with such problems.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: It is easy for hon. Members to talk gaily about registration schemes, but what would happen in practice is the same as what has happened with the dog licence in the past—irresponsible dog owners would not buy licences or register their dogs. Hon. Members who believe that it will solve all the difficulties are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Government do not intend to introduce a scheme.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Chope: I will not give way again to my hon. Friend because as yet I have not answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We cannot accept the amendment that he moved because, in effect, it asks for powers that at present are permissive to be made mandatory. The power of the police to deal with stray dogs has been discretionary since the Dogs Act 1906 because it is essential for the police to be flexible in dealing with different cases. It may not always be necessary to seize a dog which appears to be a stray if the owner is nearby.
The Government deliberately did not make it mandatory upon local authorities to appoint dog wardens. They must remain at liberty to decide whether to appoint them or not, depending on local circumstances. Where a local authority does decide to appoint dog wardens, that local authority will no doubt give them policy guidance on how to exercise their discretion under the Dogs Act. The amendment would therefore be superfluous in that context.
If a local authority does not appoint its own dog wardens, the amendment would require local authorities to secure that police officers exercised their powers. Since their powers are discretionary it is very unclear how that would operate in practice. There is also a more fundamental objection in that the amendment would give local authorities a power to interfere in police activities. It is eminently sensible that local authorities and the police

should co-operate where they are both dealing with stray dogs so that owners searching for their strays can be directed to the police or local authorities—

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend might like to contact the Medway towns, where, under the current system of dog wardens, the take-up of the licence is enforced. If people were working at it, there could be an effective registration scheme, particularly if it was raising money for the dog wardens who would then be able to spend that money on the control and welfare of dogs.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has made the same point in an earlier debate. That is an example of how a local authority is able to operate perfectly effectively under the existing law. There is no reason why other local authorities should not do likewise.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister had finished.

Mr. Chope: I was about to make one more point against the amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but if that is not necessary—

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the Medway towns run a good dog warden system, collecting the licence fee and so on. But, to be fair, some local authorities — Left-wing Labour authorities and urban authorities—will be further constrained financially and have a severe problem of dog nuisance. Under the existing financial arrangements, they will not set up dog warden schemes. A dedicated scheme, of the sort that has been described, could be financed by such authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18 agreed to.

Schedule 1

COMPETITION

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 33, leave out lines 14 and 15.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical drafting amendment. I can speak on it at great length, but it is not necessary in the circumstances. It deletes an unnecessary definition consequential on an amendment made in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 22 agreed to.

Schedule 3

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 37, line 27, at end insert—
(2) In subsection (2) (complaint not to be entertained unless made through a member of the authority concerned) after 'unless' there shall be inserted 'it is made in writing to the Local Commissioner specifying the action alleged to constitute maladministration or'.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 26.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This allows people to go to the ombudsman directly and is to be welcomed. The matter


was raised during consideration of the Bill that implemented part of the recommendations of the ombudsman's report, and will short-circuit some of the delays that people experience in getting maladministration by local authorities rectified. I hope that wide publicity will be given to the fact that when this Bill become law, people will be able to go to the ombudsman on their own without needing to go through a local councillor. I ask the Minister to make this long-sought-after extension of remedy widely known as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 37 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Dr. Cunningham, Mr. Grist, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Howard; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Howard.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Rate Support Grant (England)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84 (House of Commons Paper No. 325), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inquired after this report a moment or two ago in the Vote Office. It appears that there are no copies of it, although copies are being brought. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to ensure that copies are available. The Government Whip is passing me one, but another half dozen hon. Members may want copies, too. It is inadequate that the Leader of the House has not ensured that sufficient copies are available.

Mr. William O'Brien: I shall briefly refer to the report, because it would be wrong to allow it to go without comment. It is the fourth supplementary report to the main 1983–84 RSG report in four years. I understand that the Secretary of State has consulted local authority associations on the content of the report. The main points raised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities related to the GRE, and data corrections. Certain errors were made by the Department of the Environment in the social services GRE, which, when corrected, had devastating implications for GRE revisions and consequential grant reductions, which are significant for some authorities.
I shall give some examples. Newham lost £1·1 million, Wandsworth and Waltham Forest lost £1 million, and Hammersmith and Fulham lost £700,000. The biggest loser was Southwark, which lost £2·5 million. The adjustments were made retrospectively, after the local authorities' accounts had been audited. Therefore, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities takes the view that, as the errors were of the Secretary of State's making, they should be corrected at his expense and not at the expense of local authorities. The grant pool should be increased to compensate the authorities which have lost by the error; otherwise, all other authorities' grants will be reduced to pay for the correction. Obviously, the AMA's representation has been ignored. Therefore, other authorities will be unfairly penalised for an error made by the Secretary of State's Department.
I refer also to relevant and total expenditure and specifications under the Local Government Finance Act 1987. The Secretary of State intends to amend the definitions of relevant and total expenditure under powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. The proposed amendment would take out transfers to special funds that give rise to a deficit on the rate fund revenue account, which are not in respect of specific liabilities, or transfers back to the rate fund account of sums so transferred—so-called deficit financing transfers.
The association objects to the fact that the adjustments are made retrospectively. The proposals require authorities to change their earlier accounting practices, which, at the time, were quite proper and have not been subject to any criticism from external auditors.
The grant implications of the enforced change in accounting practices have not been revealed by the Government, but it is thought that in some cases there could be significant reductions in authorities' grants. All


the representations that have been made by local authority associations have obviously been ignored. The issues are important to local government.
I draw attention to annex 1 of the report. The estimates in the third supplementary report, compared with the one that the House is now considering, show that there has been no increase in domestic rate relief. The report also shows a continuing reduction in local government expenditure in significant respects, such as education, school meals and milk, libraries and museums, police, local transport, local environment services and employment. Other services are also affected.
In the report, the Government make provision for police pay and the policing of industrial disputes, but they disregard the increase in police recruitment. During the past four years, local police authorities have made representations for additional resources to make sure that the streets of our towns and cities are safe. Their requests found no favour with the Secretary of State. The adjustments in the report are retrospective and require authorities to change their accounting practices. I put it to the Minister that that principle is wrong and that local government is entitled to better consideration.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully the implications that face local authorities, because of what has been reported to the House tonight, and that certain provisions should be made to ensure that local authorities do not suffer because of errors that have been made by the Department of the Environment. I ask the Minister to take note of those points with a view to correcting the errors.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the fact that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that the London borough of Southwark is most severely affected by the report, it will not surprise the House that I intervene briefly to make a specific point about my local authority and the people of Southwark, although it applies generally to the nature of the report.
Last month we debated the rate-capping order on a series of local authorities which included Southwark. We debated that the day after we had debated the other supplementary rate support grant reports, with which this report was originally intended to be debated. As the House will remember, it was withdrawn at that stage because there had been some Government error and it could not be debated.
At that stage, the effect of the remaining supplementary orders in relation to other years, was that Southwark received a £2·7 million reduction in the money it was to receive for the coming year. By the rate-capping order the following night, Southwark was not allowed to raise any more money to compensate for that. The effect of that was a 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. cut in real services.
When, within a matter of weeks, we are back again to have another slice of money taken off, we have to ask Ministers why the system is working in relation to the financial year 1983–84 to remove more money from Southwark at this late stage with no compensating recovery.
I do not propose to examine the subject in great detail, but in general terms we all understand that a corrective mechanism is built into the existing rate support grant allocation system whereby grant entitlements are altered depending on the latest information as to what local authorities spend, the changes in the methodology of

calculating grant-related expenditure assessment, new principles for calculating grant-related poundages and on certain local authority expenditure being disregarded.
The figures in Southwark give rise to questions as to whether it has worked out fairly for Southwark. If it has not, presumably other boroughs and districts have also been affected. Between the third and the fourth supplementary reports laid this year, relating to four years ago, Southwark has lost £2·6 million. The figure for the supplementary grant in the third report was £38·13 million, and in the fourth report the figure was £35·53 million. The total loss of grant between the original 1983–84 rate support grant settlement and this report is some £3·806 million, according to officers in Southwark whom I have consulted today and during the past few days.
I could go through a list of the effects in each year during the past five years. Without going into detail, they show that there is a substantial net loss to Southwark, which at this late stage, only three weeks before the end of the financial year and too late for Southwark to do anything about the next financial year, will result in a loss of income to Southwark and less money being available to the borough.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a specific question that follows the general point made by the hon. Member for Normanton. Is it fair to justify to a particular borough and its residents—in this case, Southwark—how the miscalculations and wrong estimates given four years ago can be corrected at this late stage to the detriment of a community of 250,000 people? If the Government are arguing that theoretically the rate support grant should enable a standard level of services to be provided, by removing at this stage £2·5 million the Secretary of State is saying that the local authority cannot be allowed to provide a standard level of services.
Is there any way in which the Secretary of State could concede that Southwark's rate-capped figure or grant-related expenditure figure for next year could be looked at again to compensate for this late-in-the-day withdrawal of a substantial sum of money? The council has a budget of only about £130 million. To take £2·5 million out of it would have a substantial effect on its provision of services. The borough's resources are being enormously stretched to provide nursery places and home helps. It is threatening to close homes for the elderly, lunch clubs, day centres and the like. It does not seem that the borough will be able to recoup the £2·5 million.
Greater accountability is not achieved, four years after the event, by readjusting the figures to compensate for a miscalculation four years ago. About an hour ago Southwark's budget for next year was set in Southwark town hall. The rate has also been set and is now in place, but it was set without this report having been approved, without its effect having been worked into the Southwark system and without Southwark having been able to compensate adequately, both this year and next, for adjustments that have nothing to do with Southwark's alleged failings or defects.
I cite Southwark as an example of the way in which the report appears to be unfair to the borough, but I believe it to be unfair generally. The report is very much a last-minute adjustment to an accounting year that is now nearly four years ago. On the face of it, it is very much a tidying-up exercise and involves millions of pounds. It


ought not to be approved without representatives of those communities seeking assurances that money lost through no fault of their own can be recouped in some other way.
I hope that the Minister will consider ways in which he can help Southwark. I hope that he will be prepared to meet representatives from Southwark and other communities that will be affected by the report so that means can be found to compensate them for these late-in-the-day losses and so that justice can be done, even at this late stage.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The order shows how the Government are making a trawl, four years after the relevant year, in order to make adjustments to expenditure. It also shows how scrupulous the Government have been in battening down local authority expenditure. Increases in the rate poundage have been brought about in every case by the cuts, the clawbacks and the rate capping by central Government. In our earlier debate, several Conservative Members said how proud they were that local authority expenditure had been squeezed.
The order provides for a wide range of services. The poorest, those who need the most help and guidance, are in difficulties because of the constant adjustment of local authority expenditure by central Government. It would be useful if the Government applied the same scrupulousness to their own expenditure, but they do not. Local authorities nearly always meet their expenditure targets. It is central Government who are sloppy.
For example, defence expenditure is out of control. If some items of central Government expenditure were incorporated in a report such as this—for example, the millions, even billions, of pounds spent on devices such as the Sting Ray torpedo by the Ministry of Defence—the Government would press forward eagerly to the Dispatch Box to attack the local authorities responsible, whether Conservative or Labour. Naturally, however, the Government would be more gleeful if they attacked a Labour-controlled local authority. However, the Government cannot pick out any local authority in that fashion because such things do not happen: scrutiny is tight and central Government weigh down heavily on local authorities.
Four years on, this scrutiny seems unnecessarily zealous, especially when we consider that the order provides for disregarding expenditure on several items, such as the 1983 police pay award, which is perfectly reasonable; civil defence, which is some of the lunatic expenditure that the Government insist that local authorities undertake as part of the Government's cloudcuckoo-land of a radioactive cinder heap—part of the Prime Minister's vision for the future; and expense incurred in policing the miners' industrial dispute of 1984 and the mass demonstrations at Ministry of Defence sites—presumably against nuclear weapons.
Instead of following the example of the ordinary sensible housewife—so beloved of the Prime Minister's vision—and being paid on the nose at the time and with a clear object, the expenditure is often shielded by being forced on local authorities, although at the time of the dispute some local authorities refused to sign the cheques for the extra police time and police costs. I am convinced

that it was forced on them because, if central Government had been seen to spend millions of pounds policing the miners' strike, that would show how much public money—not their own money, as the Prime Minister keeps inveighing about Government expenditure—was spent on attacking the miners; then the shift of mood and opinion might have been much more marked.
Section D of the introduction provides for that sort of disregard. I assume that the mass demonstrations at Ministry of Defence sites were associated with nuclear weapons. Again, the cost of policing those demonstrations was unnecessarily high because the Government wanted to demonstrate a paramilitary might to intimidate the demonstrators, which they nevertheless failed to do.
The report is a demonstration of the crushing weight placed by central Government bureaucracy on local authorities, instead of giving them the freedom of choice—much vaunted by the Conservatives—and allowing them some choice in expenditure so that they can improve services. The report is introduced by the Government at a time which forbids or inhibits the detailed examination that could usefully be given to such a report because the Government seem absolutely obsessed with filling the House with legislation.
The Committee Rooms are bursting with people working at all hours for some frenetic purpose that is quite beyond the comprehension of the ordinary average sensible citizen, who does not think that Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill need to be dealt with tonight. We could usefully have spent a great deal more time on this report, which is important as it points to the structure of the local government system, which is vital to us all but which is being increasingly pressed by the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The report is important. As a result of new information from the local authorities, we have made changes.
The report reflects the final outturn expenditure information which, for most local authorities, is certified by the auditor. That is why the report has been introduced rather late in the day.
There are a small number of cases where deficit financing issues have led my right hon. Friend to the conclusion that total expenditure figures, other than those given to us by the authorities, are the correct ones. The final figures show that the relevant expenditure for the year was £34 million less than the amount estimated in December 1984 for the previous supplementary report. We estimate that the relevant expenditure was almost £23 billion, which is £700 million more than the amount provided for in the 1983–84 settlement. We now estimate that the total of specific grants was £42 million higher than in the last report. There are no changes to be made to the total of rate support grants. Therefore, this report increases aggregate Exchequer grant by £42 million to £11,528 million.

Mr Cryer: That is not enough.

Mr. Chope: I would impress upon the House that the sum of £11,528 million is substantial. The report brings up to date our assessments of what authorities needed to spend to provide a standard level of service—that is,


their GREs. We have incorporated into the revised GREs a final estimate of the level of interest rates paid to local authorities on their cash balances, final outturn information on non-discretionary expenditure on certain items such as mandatory student awards and land drainage precepts to water authorities.
We have made other changes affecting individual authorities, including the effects of the boundary changes made at the beginning of 1982 and 1983. We have corrected an error which was made in the personal social services components. When the numbers of elderly people in certain categories in each local authority were calculated from census information, the wrong scaling factors were used and that also affected several other indicators. We have now put that right.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that it was extremely unfair that the consequences of that change will be paid for by local authorities.

Mr. O'Brien: The cut in the allocations to personal social services is the most important part of the report. Serious consideration should be given to the joint financing between health and local authorities. The House is aware that more and more elderly and mentally sick people are being discharged by health authorities into local authority care. No provision is made in the report to cover the additional expense that must be borne by local authorities. The cut in the allocations to the personal social services is denying local authorities the resources to provide the services that they are being forced to provide by health authorities.

Mr. Chope: The report has nothing to do with the GRE indicators for the community care programme. The provision for personal social services has changed because of new information that became available. Incorrect population figures were used in the 1983–84 settlement main report to scale the numbers of elderly living alone. There were various other errors and changes resulting from that information. The effect of those changes has meant some losses for some local authorities.
Those losses are nothing like the £2 million that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says has been lost by Southwark. As a result of the social services changes, that borough has lost £43,000. I accept that Southwark has suffered some other losses, but the borough has been aware of those impending losses for some time and they were the result of other changes to the GRE.
The hon. Gentleman understands local government finance and he will know that changes to GRE feed through to alter the amount that is given to individual local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rate limit for Southwark for 1988–89 took account of the estimated effects of this supplementary report. There is no significant difference between our estimates and the actual effects arising from the supplementary report. I believe that the treasurer of Southwark exaggerated when describing to the hon. Gentleman the effects of the supplementary report.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I will confirm the treasurer's remarks later. Will the Minister confirm that the change between the No. 3 and No. 4 supplementary reports means

a loss of £2·6 million for Southwark? The change in the original rate support grant report means a loss of £3·8 million for Southwark. Although an authority budgets against the contingency of money being taken away, it is clear that an assessment of Southwark's needs made a few years ago has been altered to Southwark's detriment and has affected a substantial proportion of its allocated budget. Over the past few years we have not gained; we have lost. Surely the Minister accepts that, even though only a small part of that is due to the technical changes made since the report was originally tabled and then withdrawn.

Mr. Chope: I cannot accept that. On the latest information, Southwark received more money than it was properly entitled to. It has benefited from that money over a period and it is only as a result of this latest adjustment, following the final audit, that we can see that Southwark has been overpaid in the past. Naturally enough, that money is being clawed back from Southwark. The Southwark treasurer, as a prudent man, will have been able to anticipate that.
We are talking about one of the effects of the present rate support grant system. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we move over to the new system, each local authority will know in advance of each financial year exactly how much grant it will get, and the grant will not vary according to the authority's level of expenditure over the year. There will be much more certainty and simplicity, and we shall not be debating supplementary reports going back four years.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that the Minister will not mislead the House into thinking that the new community charge or poll tax system means either that there will not be a rate support allocation or its equivalent or that there will be absolute certainty from one year to the next. There will always have to be a rolling method of calculating allowances for local authorities. Of course the prudent treasurer budgets for potential take-back, but what happens if he has nothing left in his reserves because he has had to spend it all? There is nothing more to provide from the budget. That is the problem for overstreched authorities such as Southwark.

Mr. Chope: Those considerations were taken into account in arriving at the rate limit for Southwark this year. I do not say that under the new system the grant will be the same each successive year for each local authority, but it will not be subject to the same degree of variation as under the present system. In the year that we are discussing—1983–84—not only did we have variations resulting from individual changes in expenditure by individual authorities, but those changes had an effect upon the grant of every authority as a result of recycling.
We have covered the points raised in the report. The new changes to the revenue support grant and the grant system that will come in in 1990 will make debates such as this a thing of the past. I am sure that most hon. Members will welcome that change when it comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84 (House of Commons Paper No. 325), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Electricity Generation and Transmission (Inquiries)

[Relevant document: First Report from the Energy Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 310 of Session 1987–88), on the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987.]

Mr. John Garrett: I beg to move,
That the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be revoked.
Even at this late hour we are pleased to have the opportunity to debate the rules and we are also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy has managed to find time in his busy schedule to join us; at one time we thought that he had gone missing. He will now know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew attention in its 16th report to the defective drafting of this instrument. I shall not rehearse the points that the Committee made. There were two substantial elements in the observations of defective drafting and no doubt the Under-Secretary will wish to answer the Committee's concerns.
The effect of the rules was summarised in paragraph 5 of the first report of the Select Committee on Energy of 3 February:
All of these changes tighten procedure in a way which enhances the position of the CEGB and the Area Boards…Although the Government consulted widely, it seems that it has paid particular attention to the arguments from what might be described as the establishment side.
In a brief but useful report, the Select Committee drew attention to a number of features of the rules that it saw as causes for concern. We see them as raising a number of issues of public policy, including citizens' rights, secrecy and the democratic right to know what powerful and dangerous bodies are doing. In a short debate, these issues can receive only a brief hearing. British Governments arc notoriously secretive and a citizen's right to challenge the activities of, for example, the nuclear power industry is already loaded in favour of large organisations and against the objector. We consider that the rules are evidence of more loading on the wrong side of the balance.
The debate gives us the opportunity to raise a number of important issues for the Minister to answer. First, we would like the Minister to explain the manner of the introduction of the rules. As the Select Committee on Energy said, the 1986 consultation paper dealt with rules for inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Yet no comparable rules have been produced by the Department of the Environment or the Department of Transport. It is said that the Department of Energy has been rather more precipitate, and we do not have to look very far for the reason.
In August, 1987, the CEGB applied for consent to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset. On 16 December the new rules were produced, and they were laid on 18 December. On 17 December the Government announced the public inquiry into the Hinkley Point power station. The Select Committee on Energy stated:
It can hardly he a coincidence that the rules were made the day before the inquiry was announced.
On 22 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced that an application had been made to divert

transmission line entries to Hinkley Point. The local planning authority objected and said that an inquiry must be held under the rules. The remarkably abbreviated timetable did not give the Select Committee time to take oral evidence. Why not? Why the rush? In his commentary on the Select Committee's report of 6 February the energy correspondent of The Guardian observed:
The new rules were laid before Parliament two days before the Christmas recess at a time when the House was winding down. There was no press release from the Department of Energy and their existence was first reported in the national press by The Guardian on January 14, the day they came into effect.
The headline that appeared in The Times read:
Guidance to reactor inquiry inspector is rigged, say MPs.
It is clear that the rules were rushed out to limit the objections to the proposed Hinkley Point development. This view is confirmed by an analysis of the changes proposed in the new rules from the existing rules of 1981. The purpose of the changes is to increase the power of the Secretary of State to limit the time taken by pre-inquiry procedures and to increase the inspector's power to require information in advance of the inquiry. They are designed also to confine the evidence that may be presented at the inquiry.
There appear to be nine new provisions in the rules, and no fewer than seven of them have the effect of limiting the effectiveness of objectors. Clause 5(6) constrains the pre-inquiry meeting to within 16 weeks of notification of the local planning authority and potential appellants and objectors. Clause 6(2) allows the inspector to confine evidence to the inquiry to matters set out in the statement of case made by the applicant. It changes the serving of a statement from six weeks before the inquiry to six weeks after the notice of intent. This will disadvantage objectors. Objectors will have only four weeks to serve their statement of case on the Secretary of State.
Clause 10(1) governs the date of the inquiry and introduces yet another new time constraint. Clause 10(3) alters established planning practice by changing 42 days' notice of the inquiry to 28 days when all other inquiries are subject to 42 days' notice. The Select Committee on Energy referred to this provision as "most striking". Clause 13(3) obliges witnesses at an inquiry to set out their case three weeks before the inquiry. Clause 14(4) is a new provision that gives additional powers to the inspector to restrict evidence and cross-examination that he considers irrelevant or repetitious.
We have seven new provisions that are all aimed at limiting the scope of objections to nuclear power stations and similar developments. Perhaps the Minister will explain the justification for all these restrictions. What problem are they intended to overcome? I can answer that question. They are intended to overcome the Sizewell problem, the inquiry that lasted two and a quarter years. But, as I shall show briefly, there were many features of Sizewell which were unique.
A second area of concern for us is secrecy. That again was usefully discussed by the Energy Committee. The Committee was supplied by the Department of Energy with extracts from the Department of the Environment's planning inspectors' handbook which gives guidance to inspectors on the procedure of inquiries, with useful definitions of such terms as "irrelevant", "repetitious", "contrary to the public interest" and "disruptive manner" as applied to the behaviour of people who attend inquiries.
The Committee was asked to treat the procedural guidance as confidential. The Committee observed at paragraph 2:
We can see no good reason why this part of the handbook should not be in the public domain.
The Energy Committee went further:
We recommend at least that these extracts should be made available to any interested party. If this does not happen there will always be the natural suspicion that 'contrary to the public interest,' for example, is equated with 'contrary to the Government's interest'.
Why is there to be no public right to know what is contrary to the public interest? Surely there must be considerable public interest in knowing what is contrary to the public interest, and such knowledge would influence the behaviour of those making objections. Why is the definition of
conduct in a disruptive manner
not a matter of public guidance? What good is served by secrecy on such trivial matters? Such information would be helpful to participants in inquiries. Secrecy about them is petty regulation at its worst. I would like the Minister to undertake to make the inspectors' guidelines available to the Hinkley Point inquiry. Will he also issue the code of practice for the pre-inquiry stage?
Clearly there are justifiable concerns about the length and cost of major public inquiries. The Government's objective, stated in their consultation document, is that
inquiries should he as efficient and effective as possible, while not in any way impairing the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings, or the ability of the participants to make representations which are relevant to the decision".
The Energy Committee commented:
This is an objective of which the Committee broadly approves: we have no wish to see the Sizewell marathon run again. However, the construction of a power station, and especially a nuclear power station, raises local and national environmental, economic and safety concerns. There must be an opportunity for these concerns to be aired and assessed.
That is the Opposition's position in agreeing with the views of the Energy Committee.
Sizewell was exceptionally protracted, at 340 days, for a number of reasons which are unlikely to recur at an inquiry into Hinkley Point, for example. The Sizewell inquiry was the first on a nuclear power station in Britain which gave detailed consideration to safety. The applicant, the CEGB, appeared to be inadequately prepared, to put it mildly. The fifth report from the Select Committee on the Environment in July 1986 pointed out at paragraph 152 that the nuclear installations inspectorate promised that a full safety assessment of the pressurised water reactor project at Sizewell would be available before the inquiry began. In the event that did not happen. The nuclear installations inspectorate blamed the CEGB, whose pre-construction safety report was 10 months late. I believe that it arrived after the end of the inquiry.
There were universal complaints about the unsatisfactory quality and presentation of much of the CEGB's data on safety matters. The CEGB took 32 days to read its opening statement. There were 130 days of the inquiry spent on safety, of which only 19 were taken up by the objectors. The Sizewell inquiry ranged over the issue of advanced gas-cooled reactors against PWR comparisons, thanks to the diligence of my distinguished constituent, Mr. Round, formerly deputy chief engineer of the Eastern electricity board.
The Sizewell inquiry examined fuel policy and other national issues. In addition, there were many site-specific issues about access, unemployment, accidents, evacuation

and the effects on wildlife habitats of international importance. Sizewell, known as the inquiry to end all inquiries, ventured into unknown territory. It was a learning experience for everyone. Its lessons do not lead automatically to the stifling of objections in the interests of efficiency, as these rules seek to do.
There were many lessons to be learnt from Sizewell, but the Government have drawn only one: the need to shut up objectors. The other lessons included the opaque and confusing adversarial style of the proceedings, the legalisms, the cross-examination, the formality, the ritual, and especially the grossly unbalanced funding arising from the costs of legal representation. Time and again, the weighting in favour of applicants because of the unsustainable costs of representation by objectors is mentioned in connection with Sizewell. Objection, dissent and inquiry are rationed by the purse, on this most crucial issue of the development of nuclear power.
The Select Committee referred to funding at paragraph 8:
One other topic which concerns the Committee is the lack of financial assistance for objectors at inquiries. We regret that no such provision is included in these rules.
Friends of the Earth spent £120,000 on its Sizewell case from donations and fund-raising. It could afford to attend for five weeks of the two and quarter years for which the inquiry lasted. The Council for the Protection of Rural England had to raise £70,000 through public appeal. The Town and Country Planning Association could not afford to be legally represented, and said that it simply could not monitor the additional evidence presented during the inquiry.
A study by Jennifer Armstrong, published by the Town and Country Planning Association, concluded:
Lack of funding for one halt of the argument is one of the chief reasons for the low level of confidence in this part of the decision-making process … An independent fund should be established, administered by trustees, to which voluntary bodies seeking to take part in the inquiry may apply for financial aid. This would exclude aid for legal representation… The size of the fund would depend on the scale, complexity, location etc. of the inquiry. The removal of legal representation would substantially reduce the amount of money needed to promote a far fairer inquiry. The sums of money for which aid might be available are easily verifiable and no organisational or administrative problems are anticipated. This is clearly one of the key recommendations in the establishing of a fairer inquiry system.
The fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment made much the same recommendation, but in their response the Government refused to consider the idea of funding third parties because it would
be more likely to make major inquiries run even longer.
We return continually to the Government's proposition that an inquiry is effective only if objections are abbreviated and objectors stifled.
At the forthcoming Hinkley Point inquiry, we shall see whether the CEGB shelters behind the "contrary to public interest" rule. The local authorities are already worried that the CEGB has been unwilling to discuss its application openly, and the fear is that the CEGB will use the public interest as a device to avoid proper examination of its reasons for selecting Hinkley Point as the site of another PWR station. We fear that the rules are meant to restrict objection. As the Select Committee on Energy said, Ministers should
assure the House and country that all participants at an inquiry may be able to put their views, irrespective of their financial or political muscle.


Funding bona fide objectors would enable them to put a briefer, better-researched and better-organised case.
A public inquiry fulfils an important national role in policy-making. We have no Office of Technology Assessment, as they have in the United States. I notice that many Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion asking for such an office. There is no other forum for evaluating nuclear power generation. Weakening the rights of objectors is shortsighted and stifles genuine public interest and concern about a matter of the greatest national importance.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: There are better things to do at this time of the morning than dwell for too long on these inquiries procedures rules. But I shall speak briefly because of the importance of the rules to the proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a second PWR station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The site is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is closely involved in the issues, but the site is visible from my constituency and some of the workers are my constituents.
We want a fair and thorough inquiry into the application. If it is approved, it will be a big construction project and the station will cost about £1·5 billion. It will be the third station to be built on the site, but when Hinkley Point A is decommissioned in a few years there will be two there. The station, if completed, will not only produce a lot of electricity; it will secure supplies in the south-west region. It will bring much money and many jobs into the area. On the other side of the coin, it will create considerable disruption. New roads will be needed and site workers will have to be housed. In passing, I should state that the same kind of disruption would occur if the Severn barrage was to be constructed.
The appearance of the station is also important in the low-lying topography of the estuary. I believe that there is no reason why a large building, even an industrial building, should be ugly and I hope that the CEGB will choose architects who will produce something more sympathetic than Hinkley Point A and B. There would also be effects on the fishing industry in the estuary, on tourism and on wildlife. The inquiry would have to consider whether the geology of the site is appropriate. I am glad that the nuclear installations inspectorate will have reported on the suitability of the site by then.
All those matters and others must be discussed. I am glad that the new rules will be in force by then. It must be in everyone's interests, including those of the objectors, to have an orderly timetabled inquiry with prior disclosure of documents.
I also believe that it is sensible to assume that a planning inspector can read. At the Layfield inquiry into Sizewell, the CEGB's opening statement took 32 days to read out. That benefited only the lawyers employed in that inquiry.
It must be right to try, where possible, to shorten the inquiries. Our constituents tell us that planning inquiries are already too long, too slow and too cumbersome. Shorter inquiries are cheaper. The CEGB may have plenty

of money, but objectors to Hinkley Point C and local authorities will welcome a shorter, and therefore cheaper, inquiry.

Sir Jim Spicer: As a Member representing a Somerset constituency, does my hon. Friend agree that it seems rather strange that a local authority, Somerset county council, should already have £50,000 of ratepayers' money set on one side as well as a contingency of £500,000 to fund opposition to what we would all agree should be a shortened inquiry? Does he agree that, while the Select Committee on Energy has already said that the last thing anyone wants is a re-run of the Sizewell marathon, it appears that Somerset county council is looking not for a proper inquiry, but to drag the matter out because it is basically anti-nuclear in its approach?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has made a reasonable point. That is a lot of money and the ratepayers in Somerset may have something to say about it in due course. The county council has allocated £500,000 of ratepayers' money to fighting the inquiry. However, its objections run much wider than its objections to a nuclear power station on the site. It appears to me to be questioning the very concept of nuclear energy and of the pressurised water reactor; that is precisely why the Sizewell inquiry sat for more than two years and cost many millions of pounds. We do not want a re-run of the Sizewell inquiry in Somerset. I am glad that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said that himself. But that is what could happen if the rules are not used to try to restrict and delineate the terms and scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already conceded that the greater part of the time of the Sizewell inquiry was taken by the applicant, rather than the appellant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restriction should be not on the appellant, but on the applicant? That surely would be a way of shortening the inquiry.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Nothing in the rules prevents objectors from stating their case. They are required, for instance, to give written notice of the objections that they choose to raise. My own view is that the basic economic and safety case for the PWRs was established at Sizewell; but that is only my opinion, and it is not in any way binding on the inspector.
I feel that the inquiry at Hinkley Point should try to confine itself to issues that are relevant to that site. We all concede that the world has moved on since the Sizewell inquiry. The price of fossil fuels has dropped further and faster than the inspector may have anticipated. But that has not necessarily undermined the economic case, because Hinkley C will be considerably cheaper than Sizewell. About £200 million-worth of design costs will not be incurred again.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I return to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Somerset county council? Is he not aware that he also criticises his own party members, quite a few of whom have voted in favour of Somerset's general policy in the matter—as, indeed, have many other local authorities in the Somerset area, including some under Conservative control, which have joined the consortium with Somerset county council to oppose the


inquiry in the most effective way possible? In so doing, I suspect that they are closer to the views of the people of Somerset than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Councillors from a number of different parties to whom I have spoken are of the opinion—which I share—that it is the job of the county council to obtain the best possible deal for the county: to get the roads and bypasses built, and to make the station, if it is approved, as unobtrusive as possible. Where I part company with the Liberal group on the county council is on the issue of spending a great deal of money in trying to undermine the concept of a PWR. I regard that as having been satisfactorily addressed at the Sizewell inquiry. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that we want a thorough inquiry into all the relevant issues.
I do not fall into the habit the Liberal party has of saying, "National and regional needs are one thing, but please, not here in Somerset." Let us be a little wider in our vision. I repeat, however, that it is not for me to determine the scope of the inquiry, and the rules that we are discussing do not lay down or restrict that scope either. They are modest changes, and should be welcomed by anyone who believes that a planning inquiry should be about planning, rather than an opportunity to trot out preconceived notions aside from the relevance to the site under consideration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), the Government also welcome this opportunity to debate the new inquiry rules —[Interruption.] We have been offering dates to the Opposition for the past two or three months and those offers have not been taken up.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not true.

Mr. Spicer: That is perfectly true, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. John Prescott: The Minister should be careful about what he says. The date was offered for one day and the Government withdrew. The Opposition were quite prepared to have a debate in the afternoon in proper time because this is an important issue. We would have preferred that rather than a debate at this time of night.

Mr. Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the usual channels. However, my understanding is that several offers have been made to the Opposition and that those offers have been turned down. I do not want to make an issue out of this. I mention it only because Opposition Members mocked me when I said that the Government welcome the opportunity to debate this issue.
The debate fulfils one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Energy's recent report on the rules.
Perhaps I could begin by reminding the House of something that the hon. Member for Norwich, South ignored, no doubt inadvertently. It was a Committee of the House that first expressed concern about the length and cost of some public inquiries. The point was made, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South acknowledged, in the fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment in Session 1985–86. That Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood

Green (Sir H. Rossi). The House will recollect—this point was made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South — that more than six years passed between the application to build Sizewell B and the consent and that the public inquiry cost £4 million. I was intensely and genuinely interested in what the hon. Member for Norwich, South had to say with respect to his view that the length and cost of the Sizewell inquiry is likely to be exceptional. That was an interesting remark.
In their response to the Environment Committee's report, the Government recognised the concern about the cost and length of time taken by public inquiries and made proposals for revising planning procedures. Our aim has been to make the procedures for public inquiries more effective and efficient without impairing the right of all the parties to have their views heard. There is no question, if I may use the words used by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, of shutting up objectors. Indeed, in so far as there will be more written material available before major inquiries, life will be made easier for objectors.
The Government's proposals were included in a consultation document which was widely circulated and which contained a draft of new rules to govern inquiries under the town and country planning legislation. It is against that background that the new rules, which we are debating tonight, were prepared.
The new rules include the setting up of firm timetables for the exchange of statements between the main participants before an inquiry. They will provide a reasonable balance between the need to avoid unnecessary delay, which I am sure is shared by most hon. Members, and the need for parties to have adequate time to prepare their case. Early exchange of information before the inquiry will help to identify the principal points on which the inquiry should properly concentrate.
There are special new requirements for major inquiries, including the submission of outline statements before, and detailed statements after, one or more pre-inquiry meetings. Pre-inquiry meetings have often taken place, as at Sizewell, but there is now to be formal provision for them in the rules, although, as I have said, the principle involved is not new.

Mr. Ashdown: I am interested to hear that the Minister is seeking to make matters easier for those who are preparing their cases for the inquiry. Does he realise that the Government's complete failure to publish the terms of reference for the Hinkley C inquiry is making it impossible for those who wish to construct a case, particularly Somerset county council and the consortium of local councils which are opposed to it? Will the Government publish the terms of reference to enable them to do what the Minister says he wants them to do?

Mr. Spicer: The terms of reference will be published.

Mr. Ashdown: When?

Mr. Spicer: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. The terms of reference will be published.

Mr. Ashdown: When?

Mr. Spicer: I have just said that I am not in a position to answer that question. The inspector will also have discretionary powers to require that a summary of a statement of evidence shall be prepared, and that only that


summary shall be read out at the inquiry, although cross-examination will normally be permitted on the contents of the full statement; and that must be right. There is no good reason why time should be taken up unnecessarily by reading out before the inspector material which can be read by all the parties beforehand.
It is such a change that one—

Mr. Prescott: That is what the CEGB did.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that the way in which the CEGB presented its case was a costly waste of time. However, we now have a method of making the inquiry more cost effective without anybody being harmed by it. It seems that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is agreeing with that.
It became evident towards the end of last year—this deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, South—that a major public inquiry would be necessary into the Central Electricity Generating Board's application to construct a pressurised water reactor power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. It was clearly right—there is nothing sinister or untoward about this—that the Government's proposals to make such inquiries more efficient should apply to that major inquiry. We therefore pressed ahead with revising the relevant rules in time for this inquiry. As it was right to make a change in the rules, it was appropriate that they should have been brought forward in time for the inquiry.
As to planning inquiries, I can tell the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will shortly be making new rules governing inquiries held under the town and country planning legislation.

Mr. John Garrett: As to Hinkley Point, will the Minister reply to the question that I asked him: if he is so keen to move matters along and to avoid a protracted inquiry, will he undertake to issue the inspector's handbook, which contains useful definitions of what is or is not in the public interest? If a definition of the public interest were to be published for objectors, clearly many fruitless objections could be obviated.

Mr. Spicer: The short answer to that question is yes, and I shall deal with it in more detail in a moment.
The first of the two recommendations of the Energy Committee was that certain extracts from the Department of the Environment's planning inspectors' handbook should be made publicly available. My Department supplied those extracts to the Committee in response to its request, at short notice, for written evidence. The advice of the Department of the Environment was that its handbook was written and issued for official use only, but that the Committee should be given in confidence extracts relevant to its inquiry.
I understand that the handbook was in fact placed in the Libraries of both Houses some years ago. It is unfortunate that that was not drawn to the attention of the Energy Select Committee.
Having said that, we do believe that those passages of the handbook referring to how inspectors should deal with disruptive behaviour on the rare occasions that that takes

place at inquiries are best not given wide publicity because they could assist anyone wishing to disrupt an inquiry. I hope that the Select Committee and the House will agree with that specific point. Disruptive behaviour at an inquiry threatens people's statutory rights and it must be right that we are tightening the inspectors' powers in that respect.
However, I agree with the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Norwich, South that there is a strong case for giving wider publicity to the passages in the handbook which deal with repetition, irrelevance and evidence contrary to the public interest. In any event, the handbook will be revised to take account of the new rules, including those now under debate, and we shall listen carefully to what is said by hon. Members.
The Select Committee's other main recommendation, which, I accept, is controversial, concerns financial assistance for objectors at public inquiries. That point, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, South. The Government's position on that is well established and was discussed at length in our response to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the Environment. We continue to be against the public funding of objectors for at least three reasons.
First, most objectors appear at inquiries to defend their own interests. That is perfectly proper, but there is no reason why that should be financed from public or other funds.
Secondly, the task of deciding which objectors should receive funding and which should not could be—Labour Members laugh, but I would like to see them doing this—invidous and highly controversial. If the decision were taken before the inquiry, either by the Government or by the inspector, there could be allegations that we had predetermined what evidence was likely to be helpful and relevant.
Finally, it has to be accepted that the local planning authority and other publicly-funded bodies already appear at inquiries to represent the general public.
I had meant to intervene shortly at this stage. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the agreement of the House, I shall spend a few moments at the end answering the particular points raised.
The new rules reflect the widespread concern, shared by many of those involved in major public inquiries, about the length and cost of such proceedings. The rules are designed to make the inquiry process as efficient and effective as possible, without in any way impairing the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings or the ability of participants to make representations which are relevant to the decision.
Hon. Members may not accept that, and they may have their reasons for doing so, but that is the Government's firm position. I commend the new rules to the House and ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Only this week, on other subjects in the House, the Secretary of State for Energy has been putting the consumer first and emphasising how Government plans will do that. Yet the Minister's attempt to defend the rules go against that objective. The Minister's attempt to say at one and the same time that the rules limit and yet do not limit objectors borders on the ludicrous.
The manner in which the rules have been introduced at all stages shows that the Government have no intention of


putting the individual consumer first. The very fact that we are having this debate in the early hours of the morning is a sign of that. When the Select Committee called for a full debate on the regulations, it did not envisage one at 3 am following a heavy work load. The Government have failed to explain at any stage why the rules have been introduced in the way that they have, in what can only be described as an underhand manner.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Sneaking them in.

Mr. Taylor: Indeed. The Energy Select Committee's first report stated that
it is not difficult to surmise
why the rules were tabled two days before the House rose for the Christmas recess. That was precisely and directly related to the Hinkley C proposals. The Government do not attempt to deny that. When I tried to obtain a copy of the new rules three days after they were presented to the House, I was informed that they were not even available at the Vote Office. They had not left the Department. In the end, a special car was sent over from the Department of Energy to give me a copy. That gives us an accurate idea of what the Department is about.
It is regrettable that the Government, who preach the accountability of industry to its customers, fail to respond to the massive nationwide concern about the development of civil nuclear power. The report "British Social Attitudes 1987" showed that only 10 per cent. of the public wanted more nuclear power stations. The Minister feels that he cannot accept the views of the British people on this issue, but he must at least respond to the nation's desire to have the matter properly debated and to be given proper assurance on the safety of nuclear power.
Instead, the Minister tries to implement the new rules, which, in the words of the Select Committee,
tighten procedure in a way which enhances the position of the CEGB and Area Boards … the Government … has paid particular attention to the arguments from what might be described as the establishment side.
If the Government want to win the arguments fair and square, they should give people a fair chance to debate them.

Sir Jim Spicer: I seek one clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, saying that he is in favour of open-ended inquiries such as the Sizewell inquiry, or does he believe that some time limit should be set so that we do away with all the objections that are designed purely to waste time, because those making them do not want nuclear power stations anyway?

Mr. Taylor: Thank goodness that time limits are not being imposed. We are seeking open-minded inquiries; we do not believe that they are to be found in the Minister's proposals. Much of the debate so far has concerned the efficiency with which inquiries can be conducted—

Mr. Frank Cook: I am a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman has not rejected what was implied by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer)—that time was wasted at Sizewell by the appellants rather than the applicants. If time was indeed wasted, was it wasted by those who objected to the proposals, or by those who spun out the time by writing, re-writing, presenting and representing and failing to come up with a safety case in the end?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. Sir Frank Layfield, in the report on the Sizewell B inquiry, said:
There was an expectation that the Inquiry would consider a fully developed safety case from the CEGB. The nature and scope of the Board's case as presented was not clear … The Board's evidence was elaborated and details added, but the safety case remained insufficient complete for a site licence to be issued by March 1985.
I suggest that that report does not refer to time-wasting by various lobby organisations. It suggests that the lack of detail produced by the CEGB, which presented its case in outline, was the essential problem. A great deal of time was wasted because the CEGB failed to present its case properly at the beginning of the inquiry, which is the point that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made. Given the inquiry's concerns about the lack of detail on safety issues, I am sure the House will agree that to attempt to curtail further debate is an encouragement for planners to cut back more on detail and give less time to matters of safety. If Conservative Members do not believe that these are legitimate concerns for inquiries, they are out of tune with general public feeling.

Mr. Ashdown: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the Layfield report, which the Minister carefully prayed in aid, is it not the case that, because of the Government's restrictions, certain specific recommendations by the Layfield report about what should be considered when the next PWR comes under consideration will be excluded from the inquiry? I refer in particular to the requirements laid down in paragraphs 108.4 and 91.28 of the report. Other considerations that should be considered are now to be excluded. The Government are deliberately excluding some of the things that Layfield recommended should be included.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall elaborate the points that he raised.
The proposals seem to allow the applicants to delay their submission until the objectors have spoken, subject to the inspector's discretion. In other words, they need not come in at all until right at the end of the inquiry. Surely that is nonsense. How can objectors possibly be expected to make the best of their case if they have not heard the applicants' argument in advance of that taking place? That is not an acceptable process that the House should be asked to adopt.
The Secretary of State referred to the future of the Hinkley C inquiry. He stated that he did not want
a tedious, repetitious inquiry in which people use the procedure to prevent a decision from being made.
However tedious and repetitious the Secretary of State may find such an inquiry, the people of Somerset will want broad terms of reference and easy access to the debate to allow them to have their say about future proposals for their community.

Mr. Ashdown: And Dorset.

Mr. Taylor: And Dorset, as my hon. Friend said.
It is not just a case of where one happens to choose a site for a power station. That is the least of the issues concerned with the siting of a PWR.
As my hon. Friend asked, will the Government pay attention to the recommendations made during the Sizewell inquiry? In his report, Sir Frank Layfield made it clear that the inquiry was seen as a single inquiry affecting one type of power generation in one area. It is vital that the arguments are looked into again to search for alternatives, if that is deemed to be more suitable.
It is suggested in the report that, if further progress is made in combined heat and power generation, for example, it should be considered. Another point that was made during the inquiry was that if there were a future inquiry
The CEGB has made it plain that the possibility of such a sequence"—
that is, PWRs—
would not remove the need for a proper comparison of alternative means of generation.
That is precisely contrary to what Conservative Members have argued.
Like many of my colleagues, I shall watch the proceedings of the Hinkley Point inquiry with interest to see whether the recommendations have been noted or whether Sir Frank Layfield simply wasted his breath in making his suggestions. I hope that it will be possible for objectors to debate alternative forms of generation, and that they will not be ruled out of order for being repetitious or even perhaps disruptive of the general flow of debate on putting in a PWR.
Many people fear that the general tenor and implication of the new rules is a great increase in the level of secrecy. A good illustration of that—even following the Minister's comments—is the Department of the Environment's planning inspectorate's handbook. The new rules still propose that substantial parts of it remain confidential. I welcome in part what the Minister has said on that matter.
Objectors must be able to know why their evidence is deemed to be contrary to the public interest, irrelevant or repetitious. To keep the book confidential would strengthen the argument of those who say that the Government are siding with the establishment, as has been said, or worse, as the Select Committee has said, that
contrary to the public interest
will come to be equated with
contrary to the Government's interests".
It is in the interests of all hon. Members and all who believe in democracy that that should not be the case. The Minister said that such aspects should get some kind of publicity, but he does not go far down that line. He suggests some extracts. He does not even make any absolutely definite commitment.
Objectors have not won a single case in the last 20 public inquiries. They hardly need things any more weighted against them than they already are. There is no great evidence that objectors are making such use of the freedoms that are given to them that they are getting far in persuading anybody. I do not know why the Minister is so afraid of them. Frankly, the Minister's comment that what is considered as disruptive should remain secret is absurd. Should the police not reveal what they would describe as grievous bodily harm? People must be able to find out, if they are interested, what they are allowed to do and what are the boundaries beyond which they are not allowed to step. That must be available to the public.
There are other examples of the secrecy surrounding the issue from the CEGB at Hinkley. The objectors to Hinkley C, in an attempt to assess its economic viability, have asked the CEGB to release a statement of the projected costs of the proposed power station. Yet so far the CEGB has refused to release those figures. That can only hinder the objectors in their attempt to draw up their case. Indeed it may well lead them to make cases that, in the Minister's

words, are irrelevant or repetitious because they do not have the facts to make their case properly. Such secrecy cannot be in the public interests.
A letter from the CEGB states:
On the matter of capital costs for new coal-fired plant, a decision on whether or not these will be included in our inquiry document for Hinkley Point 'C' will be influenced, among other things, by the Rule 5 Statement.
In other words the CEGB may or may not give the information.
There can be no doubt that these new rules are aimed at the small objectors and have been created to hinder the small objectors. That is the only respect in which they can save time on the inquiries.
The Secretary of State can call a pre-inquiry meeting within 28 days and a full inquiry within eight weeks of the pre-inquiry meeting giving short notice to any of those wishing to lodge objections.
The Department of Energy believes that it would provide greater flexibility to arrange an inquiry sooner. I do not know what that means. Would it perhaps have provided the Government with less flexibility to debate this issue sooner? Is that why they have delayed?
The new rule 6(4) will state that every objector issuing a document must give a copy to every person concerned. At a large inquiry there may be as many as 100 objectors. If the objection covers 100 pages, that could amount to more than 10,000 pages. How is a small objector expected to bear the costs of that?
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said that shorter inquiries are cheaper inquiries. Under these rules the inquiries will be anything but cheap to the smaller objectors who actually want to make their case. It will also mean that the inquiries are less thorough, and that is a greater concern. The hon. Gentleman said that it would help the smaller objector, as a shorter inquiry would be a cheaper inquiry. The appropriate answer would be to ensure that those smaller objectors are helped to produce those documents.
A straightforward, simple answer would be for the Government to take on board the cost of giving copies of the various submissions to all those involved in the inquiries. Objectors will not have very long to make those submissions, so it is unlikely that they will be very long. The Government could take that point on board. It might actually help the hon. Member for Dorset, South to make his point.
I remain deeply suspicious of the Government's motives. I remain suspicious of the underhand methods that they have used in bringing forward these proposals, the secrecy surrounding the CEGB and the rush to implement this new rule when other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, have held back. Why is the Department of Energy in such a hurry? Is the intention simply to rush through the inquiry and commence construction of Hinkley C before privatisation and before we have to meet the question whether private companies will want to build the power station at all?
We should be watching closely for what I can describe only as insidious change by insidious methods. I find it ironic that the Government claim to speak for the individual and for the consumer. I am tempted to ask how they can do that when they will not even give people the adequate opportunity to present their case so that the Government can listen to what they have to say.

Mr. Frank Cook: As time is limited, I shall not cover all the ground that I had intended to cover—and I could speak at considerable length. However, I must allow myself to be tempted by some of the Minister's comments.
The Minister referred to the need to contain and minimise disruptive behaviour in relation to planning inquiries. It is rich for the Minister to be addressing affairs related to the nuclear industry and talking about disruptive behaviour. I advise the Minister to talk to hill farmers in Wales or Cumbria about their lambs and to the Governments of the 15 Third world countries that have received huge consignments of contaminated milk powder from the Common Market as a result of Chernobyl.
The Minister said that he had offered a debate on this issue but that the Opposition had turned it down. I remind him that week after week I have appealed to the Leader of the House during business questions for such a debate.
The Government tried furtively to sneak these rules on to the Order Paper when hon. Members were dashing home to nibble at their Christmas pudding and find a sprig of mistletoe. During the second week of January I tabled an all-party early-day motion that drew attention to the restrictions which have been placed on objectors but which Conservative Members say do not exist. The new rules will affect planning inquiries into the 10 proposed power stations. The majority of the inquiries will affect those people who vote for the Tories. They will be affected by the new power stations and the overhead power lines.
I draw attention to the scientific advisory panel's final report on the New York state power lines project. Its title is "Biological effects of power line fields." I referred to the report in early-day motion 498. I intend to quote selectively from the report, which says:
magnetic fields stimulate the rate of cancer cell growth … children with leukemia and brain cancer are more likely to live in homes where there are elevated 60-Hz magnetic field levels than are children who do not have cancer … for the cancer cells, but not the normal cells, magnetic or combined magnetic and electric fields caused increased cell proliferation, increased numbers of surface transferring receptors, increased resistance to natural-killer-cell activities and increased expression of tumor-cell antigens … All studies demonstrated significant alterations of behaviour … Several areas of potential concern for public health have been identified, but more research must be done before final conclusions can be drawn.
In the light of that evidence, it is astonishing that the Government can so blindly try to impose such restrictions.
I have received a letter dated 4 March 1988 from a borough council concerning overhead power lines. The chief planning officer wrote:
I refer to your recent enquiry concerning Overhead Power lines. I have checked through the main sources of planning information and found very little guidance or advice on this particular subject.
Apart from restrictions on the right of objectors to make representations to planning inquiries, very little guidance will be made available by the planning authorities.
The letter continues:
There is no guidance on residential development either existing or proposed in relation to Overhead lines … Whilst there has been concern voiced about the effects of electro magnetic fields there is no substantial evidence which the Local Planning Authority could utilise to deal with such proposals any differently or possibly refuse planning permission.
In other words, the information which the New York state brought out in its final report is not made available

to our planning officers. I find that astonishing, especially in the light of another two pieces of correspondence that I consider relevant to our discussions tonight. One is dated 18 July 1982. We have heard a lot about Sizewell and about Sir Frank Layfield—and I am not surprised. This is even more interesting because the letter is signed by Sir Frank Layfield and is addressed to the then Secretary of State for Energy, who hon. Members today will recognise in his present position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The letter was before the Sizewell inquiry.
Sir Frank Layfield advised the Secretary of State:
the most frequent request made to me was for the provision of public funds to objectors and others who wished to appear at the Inquiry … these requests reflected strongly and widely held views which in many instances were based on thoughtful and well-considered arguments.
Many of those present at the meeting asked me to pass on their arguments to you and this I now seek to do. In doing so, I realise that requests of a similar kind have been drawn to the attention of Ministers on a number of previous occasions … because of the extent, character and importance of the representations and to the extent of considerable feeling they reflect, I ask that the provision of financial assistance be reconsidered."
The basis of the appeal made to the Secretary of State by Sir Frank Layfield is that
the likelihood is the Inquiry will be the sole opportunity which the public will have to take part in a critical examination of the national issues involved. It was argued that, if Sizewell B is permitted, all future Inquiries into P W.R. Stations will be concerned, wholly or mainly, with siting and local environmental aspects only.
That was the representation that a responsible man, Sir Frank Layfield, who since then has rightly been held up by the Government as a figure of esteem, made to the then Secretary of State for Energy.
What was the reply? The Secretary of State wrote:
I recognise the sincerity and care with which the case for such aid has been put and I am grateful to you for setting out the arguments so fully and so fairly.
The Secretary of State is a fair man. His letter continued:
I have read your letter and its enclosures very carefully and reconsidered all the arguments … It is argued that this will be the only opportunity to examine these issues directly in relation to the PWR.
Then he damned it all by stating:
Any future application for a nuclear power station will be judged on its own merits. Like Sizewell, future inquiries under Section 34 of the Electricity Act 1957 must conform both to the provisions of that section and the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1981 made last December. These rules require from the Secretary of State a written statement of the points which he thinks relevant to his consideration of a power station application. This is for the guidance of the Inspector but it is not binding on him.
However, we now find the Government furtively trying to sneak in amended rules applying to planning inquiries purely for power stations and for overhead power lines. It is all right for the Minister to protest that the Government are going to bring in revised planning rules for other areas. Why could they not do so simultaneously? Why could the Minister not give us a date? If he says that it is the Opposition who are ill prepared for this debate, why does he not have the answers to such questions tonight? He will say that it is because it is so early in the morning, but as we have been waiting for the debate for so long, surely he has had all the more time to prepare the case. It is nonsense.
The Secretary of State went on to say that the nuclear installations inspectorate's report to the Sizewell inquiry would be


a valuable independent aid to all parties wishing to probe and discuss the safety aspects of the project.
That was before the inquiry. Do I need to remind the Minister and other hon. Members that the NII was unable to present any kind of safety case because the CEGB had been unwilling or unable to submit the basis upon which that safety case would be assessed?
It is important that all the arguments are placed on record. The coalition of local authorities that are opposed to Hinkley Point have made eight arguments. The first is:
The CEGB possesses considerable resources and expertise and thus easily out-resources all other objectors. The CEGB should accordingly be full and frank both in their dialogue with objectors and in readily making information available. So far the CEGB has been unwilling to engage in a full exchange of information.
I hope that the Minister will address the CEGB about that later today.
The second is:
The new Rules require non-local authority objectors to serve copies of their statements of case on other parties".
The cost of providing such copies should fall on the applicant rather than the appellant. After all, those costs fall on the taxpayer in one way or another.
The third is:
The Rules … enable the Secretary of State to give 28 days' notice of the start of an inquiry. (42 days under the existing Rules.) This period is patently insufficient in the case of major inquiries.
The Minister should ensure that that period is adjusted.
The fourth is:
Responsible non-local authority objectors should receive appropriate funding to ensure their objections are presented with the benefit of professional advice and representation, as recommended by Sir Frank Layfield in relation to the Sizewell B public inquiry.
The fifth is:
The Inspector's Handbook should be available to all interested parties.
That echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, and I am grateful that the Minister has given an undertaking about that.
The sixth is:
The CEGB must not be allowed to shelter behind the 'contrary to public interest' rule.

Mr. Michael Spicer: indicated assent.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful that the Minister agrees. That argument also echoes what my hon. Friend said.
The seventh is:
The forthcoming 'Code of Practice', dealing with major inquiries, which may be relevant in the context of the Hinkley Point inquiry, should be made available as soon as possible." Thus, objectors will then be able to make pre-reference to that code.
Finally, the coalition states:
The Secretary of State should ensure that a full scrutiny of the issues of site selection, economics, environmental planning and local safety issues takes place at the Hinkley Point Inquiry.".
I am challenging the Minister to prove that my early-day motion 497, which was tabled in the second week of January, was an accurate prediction. I would be pleased to hear that.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The problems of the Hinkley Point site stem from the Sizewell inquiry. At that time the Government would not accept that the inquiry

into the PWR and the inquiry into the power station at Sizewell were separate. If PWRs had been the subject of a Royal Commission or a debate in the House distinct from the issue of Sizewell we would not be faced with our present problems.
Public confidence is vital for anything to do with planning proposals or changes to planning proposals. In my area—beyond my constituency—public confidence in planning inquiries has been seriously damaged by the Sizewell inquiry and the Hinkley Point proposals. It may seem strange that the north of England is concerned about those two stations, but two authorities in my areas helped to present cases. The Northumberland county council made a significant investment in a presentation at Sizewell. I was the leader of the council who asked the county to make that investment. Wansbeck district council also contributed towards the cost of making a presentation at Sizewell. It looks as though those authorities will be making similar presentations at the Hinkley Point inquiry.
The people in my area are extremely interested in such matters. Indeed, a local association was formed about five years ago because it was discovered that the CEGB planned to build a nuclear power station close to my constituency. Druridge bay is on the CEGB's hit list of sites for a nuclear power station. The Druridge bay association is very enthusiastic and raises its funds by the normal methods used by charities—including encouraging me to run three miles along the beach last year. I am not capable of doing that again; having spent so much time in this place I am not in condition.
The suggested changes preclude individuals from objecting. Paragraph 11(f) says:
in relation to applications under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, owners and lessees of land situate within three hundred yards of the land
may appear. That is a restriction; why not three miles or 30 miles? I assure the Minister that people who live far more than 30 miles away are interested in the site in my area. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) came far more than 30 miles to support me and my colleagues once.

Mr. Frank Cook: I would do it again.

Mr. Thompson: I am most grateful.
The important concept is that the public should have the right to make representations, and the suggested changes give too much power to the Secretary of State to eliminate or restrict representations by individuals and allow the inspector to eliminate, thin out or water down people's representions. That is a diminution of democracy—another little bit that has been taken away.
I am sure that my constituents and those in the area will express their concern in whatever way is possible. We have not yet had from the CEGB a specific proposal to build a power station at Druridge bay. The CEGB, with a great deal of secrecy, has been on site. It has brought machinery to do borings on the site at 7 o'clock in the morning. That is the sort of activity in which the CEGB involves itself. It is now drafting detailed plans for the development of the site but it has said, "We are not going ahead with it yet." My advice to the people of my area is to start saving up. It is clear from the Minister's comments that we shall not get any help. We shall have to raise the funds by holding jumble sales and sponsored runs on the beach and by whatever methods we possibly can.
I assure the Minister that when the time comes to fight for Druridge the money will be there: it will come out of the pockets of those who are interested in that area. We shall find the cash to fight the CEGB—or anybody else—because we must remember that there are likely to be changes in the generating industry by then. The fight will be on. We shall do it by the penny, by the sixpence—by whatever means are necessary, to fight the campaign.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to put my views and those of my constituents before the House now that we have finally reached the stage of the debate—3.12 am—at which the spirit of nuclear glasnost has descended upon us and we can have a discussion on the rules, which were originally sneaked in like a thief in the night, the day before we adjourned for Christmas. My constituents and I are very grateful to the usual channels for having arranged this debate at such a convenient time.
I can say without a doubt that my constituents in Cardiff, West — through the usual Bristol channels—have a major interest in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station which will be the testbed for the new rules. It will be the test of their fairness to the kind of objectors who will wish to present a case at a public inquiry about a nuclear power station.
What kind of people want to present their case to such an inquiry? The example of the Sizewell inquiry has been held before us by the Minister and others as a horror show in which objectors made light of proper procedures and disrupted proceedings causing them to be long drawn-out and disorderly. There was far too extensive a lead-in by the CEGB, and far too untidy a safety case was presented. Therefore, there is no reason why the Hinkley Point C inquiry should be similar to the Sizewell inquiry. There is every reason to ensure, however, that objectors have the right to present their case at the Hinkley Point C inquiry, as they did at the Sizewell inquiry.
It is significant that the Sizewell inquiry took place before the Chernobyl disaster. The impact on people's concerns about safety, the long-term effects of radiation and their health is thus all the greater. I do not think that the Minister has taken account of that factor.
Secondly, there are far more objectors to Hinkley Point C than there were to the Sizewell proposal. The number of objectors to the Sizewell proposal was about 8,000, and I understand that there are about 12,000 to the Hinkley Point C proposal. How can there be more restrictive rules when there are 50 per cent. more objectors? The increase is obviously strongly linked to the Chernobyl incident. As some hon. Members have said, that has had a major impact in areas of Wales, apart from my constituency. It has been revealed by the Government's experts that in some areas caesium levels will prevent the grazing of sheep for a generation. That is the position in one part of north Wales because of the Pd nature of the soil.
If that can be expected as a result of an accident that took place about 1,500 miles away, constituents of mine who live no more than 25 miles from the proposed Hinkley Point C will demand to have their objections heard properly. They will demand also that the material that they want to introduce to the inquiry shall not be restricted, bearing in mind that they will be amateurs competing with professionals. They will want their views to be made known to the inquiry, and they should have every right

under our system to ensure that their voices are heard. They may not have the skills—they will certainly not have the money—to prepare their case in the same way as the CEGB, but they will wish to ensure that the Government take note of their views. The applicant, the CEGB, will have to take the same approach.
The third difference from the Sizewell inquiry stems from the announcement that was made on Monday during the debate on the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The Secretary of State stressed that he expected that a more entrepreneurial approach would apply in the electricity industry as a result of the competition that will develop in the generation of electricity. He argued that it will be an entrepreneurial private sector organisation as soon as the necessary legislation passes through the House. He told us that it will cease to be a public utility. This will happen in a minimum of two years. Of course, it could take much longer than that.
If the proposed legislation is enacted, the body that will be operating a power station at Hinkley Point C will be expected to follow a more entrepreneurial line than a public utility. That was not the position at Sizewell. The animal that will be operating a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, if it is successful in seeing its way through a public inquiry and an investigation into safety, will be different from the one at Sizewell that was known to be a public utility.
The three factors that I have mentioned require that objectors' rights should not be restricted at the Hinkley Point C inquiry. The amateur objectors—and there will be many—must not find themselves crushed under the feet of the Goliaths, the CEGB and the other large organisations that have enormous resources, a large team of professional staff and all the facts at their finger tips. These large organisations will find it only too easy under the new rules to disqualify evidence and to blind people with science at a time when objectors will take the view that a nuclear power station of the sort that is proposed at Hinkley Point, in that location, with populations in the Cardiff and Bristol areas only about 30 miles from the site, will be an unwise choice and unsafe, even if it is operated by a public utility, let alone a private sector organisation.
The proposed use of the new rules for the first time at Hinkley Point C has to be seen in the context of the unholy triangle of moves that the Government have initiated for the nuclear power programme. They are bringing in new rules for public inquiries which will restrict the rights of objectors to present their case to the inspector. At the same time they are preserving the nuclear industry from the climate of competition that they are introducing in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Everybody else will have to compete, but the nuclear industry will not. It will have a reserved share. That is the second part of the unholy triangle.
The third part is the levy which will be imposed on the electricity industry on 1 April. There will be a 9 per cent. increase in prices in England and Wales and a 2 per cent. increase in Scotland. There will be a further 6 per cent. increase next year. In England and Wales that will mean that there will be a 15 per cent. levy on consumers, which the industry did not ask for, to fund the most capital-intensive part of the industry—the nuclear part. It will put money into the pocket of the CEGB which will later go to the successor body, Big G, as it is commonly known in the generating industry. It will go to the 70 per cent. part


of the CEGB's generating function which will have a duty laid on it by the Government because the Prime Minister has almost a tryst with the nuclear industry. She is Gretchen to Lord Marshall's Dr. Faust in trying to ensure that, whatever happens to the price of oil or the cost of energy, we will have a major nuclear power programme.
There may be a lot of private generators coming into the industry. It does not matter whether the price is competitive; we will have a nuclear power programme. The Prime Minister has sold her soul to the nuclear power industry. Come what may, the normal rules of free market Conservatism will not apply. I am amazed that some of the free marketeers lined up on the Conservative Benches do not seem to mind that they are throwing away Conservative free market principles when it comes to the nuclear power industry. We have the unholy triangle, of which a key part is to ensure that the rules of public inquiries are rigged in favour of the nuclear power programme, as well as the increase in prices for which the industry did not ask but which will be imposed on it so that it will have funds. As the Americans would say, they will take our money in order to build nuclear power stations that we do not want.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As some hon. Members know, I chair the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has reported on the rules. Because some of the 12,000 objectors who have been mentioned might be seeking information. and since the Joint Committee's report is not well known, it should be recorded in Hansard that this is the 16th report of the Joint Committee, House of Commons paper 49-xx.
We reported on the rules on the basis that they are made by the Lord Chancellor's Department, but there is no one from the Lord Chancellor's Department here to answer points. The definition of England and Wales is provided only by the fact that the rules are made by the Lord Chancellor alone, although on the face of the rules there is no indication that they apply purely to England and Wales.
We also made the point in the report, in the third paragraph, that
The Rules provide procedures for public inquiries in connection with certain electricity works. Rule 10(3) requires the Secretary of State to give at least 28 days' notice of an inquiry to every person entitled to appear, but empowers him to reduce the notice period by agreement with the promoter of the works and the local authority.
Concern was expressed that an acquiescent local authority and the applicant could come to a collusive arrangement whereby the notice would be reduced.
Our report continued:
The Committee asked the Department why the Secretary of State was not required to consult other parties entitled to appear at the inquiry before holding it at short notice. The Department replied in their first memorandum that this provision was precedented in Rules for similar or comparable inquiries made in 1974 and 1981, and in their further memorandum that the Department of Energy would 'wherever possible … take account of the views of such parties in exercising this power', but that not all other parties would necessarily be known to the Secretary of State before the inquiry began. The Committee could see no reason why the Secretary of State should not be required to consult such other parties as had notified him of an intention or a wish to appear at the inquiry; but they acknowledge that, since this

provision appeared in the 1974 and 1981 Rules, it cannot be regarded as an unusual or unexpected use of the Department's rule-making power, and that the Department have given an assurance which mitigates the concern expressed by the Committee.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The fact that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak means that I shall not have time to reply to the debate, but on this important point that he is making on behalf of the Joint Committee, the easiest thing would be for me to write to him.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the Minister.
The memorandum provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department, not by the Secretary of State for Energy, says:
The ability to reduce the period within which written notice of an inquiry should be given from 42 days to 28 days provides greater flexibility to arrange an inquiry sooner, particularly in respect of overhead lines proposals where few parties may be involved. For major inquiries, however, it has always been envisaged that much more than 28 days' notice will continue to be given.
That assurance has now been read into the record. It was given to the Joint Committee, which expressed its misgivings. I should emphasise that there is a majority of Government Members on that Committee, but it reported unanimously its concern about the reduction in rights, and I hope that the fact that it is recorded in Hansard will enable potential objectors to obtain wider information about the nature and content of the rules.

Mr. John Garrett: In view of the Minister's failure to answer the serious questions asked about secrecy, citizens' rights to protest about nuclear power development, the definition of the public interest and the serious risk that, at the Hinkley Point inquiry, the CEGB will try to hide behind the definition of the public interest to stifle debate and objection, I invite my hon. Friends to support the prayer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 84.

Division No. 210]
[3.27 am


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Morgan, Rhodri


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Nellist, Dave


Battle, John
Pike, Peter L.


Clay, Bob
Prescott, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Cummings, John
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Garrett, John (Norwich South)



Henderson, Doug
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Alun Michael and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Amos, Alan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold. Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butler, Chris


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen






Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Hal


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Rathbone, Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Irvine, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knowles, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lord, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordinly negatived.

Orders of the Day — A1(M) (Safety)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It has been a long night—or should I say morning—but I appreciate the opportunity to raise a case which, both in itself and in its wider implications, causes me great concern. I hope that, by the end of the debate, my feelings will find sufficient echo with the Minister to persuade him to act, If so, it will have all been worthwhile.
In August 1985, a young constituent of mine, Emma Bowring, boarded a National Express coach at Durham bus station for the journey to London. Although she had qualified as a nurse in Durham the year before, she had been forced out of the area by the scarcity of jobs. So, each month, after a short visit to her family and friends in Durham, she would get on to her coach to return to her work in Kent. A significant part of her leisure was spent in trying to keep up her links with home, and she was familiar to the point of tedium with the coach journey. Doubtless she was also aware—as is anyone who travels to the north-east—of the diabolical traffic levels on the A1 road, especially north of Ferrybridge. It is always groaning with heavy vehicles negotiating the two-lane carriageway. In only a few places is the A1 up to motorway standards.
Something else that Miss Bowring might have noticed on her monthly journeys was the swarms of passenger-carrying coaches that our trunk roads seem to attract so freely. As a regular passenger, she could not have missed the experience of her coach charging at 80 mph plus, past somebody doing perhaps a couple of miles an hour above the speed limit. We have all seen it happen. Just in case the Minister has not seen it happen, I have here a set of photographs taken only last month by Today newspaper, each of which shows a coach exceeding the speed limit on the motorway.
I should like to quote from Today newspaper which says:
The perils of high-speed coaches have become a daily fact of life on Britain's motorways as drivers battle to keep to timetables. In recent years these have led to a spate of fatal crashes.
The article goes on to say:
Using a Porsche sports car—widely accepted in the motor industry as having the most accurate speedometer—the speeds of passing vehicles were monitored. Within minutes, as the Porsche kept to 70 mph, the first offender roared past. The single-decker owned by the Berks/Bucks Bus Company was travelling at between 75 mph and 80 mph as it carried passengers into London. Shortly after, the British Airways coach, driving even faster, powered past…During a similar check on the M1 between Leeds and Manchester, almost all the long-distance coaches were driving to the maximum speed limit. At one stage a coach operated by Fastway, part of the Wakefield-based West Riding Automobile Company, was seen travelling at 85 mph on the outside edge of the fast lane, spraying dust and dirt on to cars behind it.
The newspaper's evidence is consistently backed up by the results of more scientific studies, including those of the Minister's Department.
It is no use blaming coach drivers' self-indulgence for the problem. The real danger appears to arise from under-generous scheduling by companies anxious to make the most use of their vehicles and to present the most


competitive journey times, however nominal. The five hour 15 minute scheduled journey from Newcastle to London preserves a legal average speed of about 60 miles an hour. However, it fails to take account of the time needed for intermediate stops, roadworks and the congested approaches to London. It can mean drivers rushing to make up time to meet advertised connections or to prevent inroads into their rest time before they must start on their return journey. Keeping up with the timetable can mean speeds of well over 80 mph.
Miss Bowring's journey on 3 August did not last long. Shortly after leaving Durham, just north of the Bradbury interchange on the A1, her coach swerved to miss a sheep which had been allowed to wander on to the carriageway. The coach overturned. The passengers were thrown across the vehicle and a number of them who were trapped inside were dragged along the road on a bed of broken glass and oil. Emma Bowring was killed and her 13-year-old sister, travelling with her, suffered serious spinal injuries. She was in hospital for two years and still needs regular medical attention. The disaster could have been worse than that of King's Cross and it was only a miracle that it was not.
It was said at the inquest that the driver, who was 64, lost control, swerving his vehicle through a 180 degree turn. Tachograph records showed that the bus had been travelling at speeds in excess of 80 mph shortly before the accident. The double-decker vehicle contained 48 passengers, 42 of whom were on the top deck.
Since Miss Bowring's death, her parents have been engaged in an exhausting battle for some sort of recompense. Money is important—no one can pretend that it is not — to ensure the future of their maimed young daughter. Even more than that, there is a wish for the bus company to pay some sort of attention to them and the wider circle of victims after the disaster for which it was responsible. So far, the company has consciously failed to do that. The company, United Motor Services, can legally refuse to offer anything in respect of Emma, and I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that is what it has done. Appalled by the meanness and irresponsibility of United Motor Services, the girl's parents came to see me recently and started off the process that has led to this debate. The girl's father wrote to me and said:
The bereaved families, in addition to the problems they have to cope with, are forced to face the harrowing experience of carrying their argument into the glare of publicity to get any sort of result. Our experience gives us no other hope that the Company will reveal its concern or its conscience.
United Motor Services looks to me, and to everyone else whom I have asked, as being outstandingly arrogant and uncaring. It is quite happy to take people's money but when the debt is the other way around it is not interested.
From what Mr. Draper, the girl's father, tells me, United Motor Services has not contacted him to apologise yet. Apparently, for United Motor Services, under our law, it is cheaper for Emma Bowring to die than for her to be injured, and surely that cannot be just.
From the outset I have been conscious that Miss Bowring's case is a matter for the courts and not for the Minister. The mammoth task of tackling the compensation laws is not yet one for which I feel properly equipped. As I looked deeper into the messy issue of coach safety I became more certain that too many people were going through the circus of injuries, bereavements and

compensation fights. The rate of death and injury is still too high, despite recent improvements, and there are proven safety measures that could surely reduce it, given the will of the Government and the strength of regulation.
I am aware of the measures that the Government have adopted in certain regards, and some are very encouraging. Speed governors are an important improvement, even if they are rather overdue, and I welcome the new regulations. I ask the Minister to monitor coach schedules and speeds in the three years until installation is universal to counter the dangerous practices to which I referred earlier.
Other measures will be less useful. I am particularly concerned about the narrow scope of the new seat belt regulations, which as the Minister will know apply only to the few exposed seats on a coach and will not apply retrospectively. As the coach fleet that is already in service is quite new and will not need replacing for many years, very few vehicles will have seat belts fitted in the near future. I feel that the question of whether seat belts should be fitted to all seats deserves closer examination.
As the Minister will know, compulsory seat belt wearing in the front seats of cars has led to an appreciable drop in the casualty rate. No doubt the same will happen when rear seat occupants are brought under the scope of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill. The principles involved in passenger coaches are not exactly the same, but the results should be fairly similar. If anything, the seats of a coach carry more people than the rear seats of a car, although they are comparable.
In a collision, seat belts prevent people being thrown around inside the vehicle or being thrown outside it, which is the cause of the most serious injuries. Seat belts would save coach passengers from a host of minor and extremely common injuries, such as when someone's head is knocked against the seat in front.
To be worth while, seat belts would have to be compulsory. That might lead to some aggravation at first, but passengers would surely get used to them, particularly as there is little need for movement on a coach.
Last year the Consumers Association had a meeting with the Minister and pressed
that fitted seatbelts should be mandatory on all coach seats—they are technically necessary, low cost, available and wanted by consumers.
The outcome was disappointing … the Minister's argument was that compulsory seatbelts would not be effective.
Rather than waiting for the ECE Regulation we would like to see the UK setting the pace on this, and encouraging Europe to join in."
I ask the Minister what chance there is of a satisfactory ECE regulation in the near future. I question his judgment of cost-effectiveness, because surely anything that will save hundreds of deaths and injuries for an outlay of about £7 per seat is automatically cost-effective.
The other proposal that would cut down on the future numbers of Bowring cases is to reform the speed limits. Britain has arguably the most crowded roads in Europe. If I were a regular coach user, I would be frightened by the fact that Europe's most crowded roads also have Europe's highest coach speed limits. Seventy mph is a reasonable speed for cars, but for a six-wheeled 20-tonne, 15-ft tall monster with 60 people and their luggage on board, it is a disaster. Other countries seem to understand that. Nowhere else does the motorway coach limit come closer


than 62 mph. Even Britain recognises that heavy goods vehicles should not exceed 60 mph or enter the third lane on motorways. With all the double-decker coaches nowadays, the only difference between them that matters is that heavy goods vehicles carry far fewer people.
Indications are that impact strength in a collision at 60 mph is 44 per cent. less than in the same collision at 70 mph, and that a speed limit of 60 mph would reduce the gravity of injuiries and the number of accidents.
To ban coaches from the third lane of three-lane motorways is the final major measure that I consider would improve standards. It complements a lower speed limit well. Indeed, it is probably wrong to have one without the other. Speed limits without lane restrictions would mean that coaches hampered cars in the fastest lane and lane restrictions without speed limits could mean that coaches were travelling too fast for the traffic in the two lanes to which they had access. Removing coaches from the third lane would keep them out of the fastest traffic and oblige them to slow down. It would also reduce the need for lane changes and overtaking, the most dangerous parts of motorway driving.
No doubt the Minister will be thankful to hear that I am nearing the end of the things that I think that his Department should be doing. As I do so, I would just like to touch on a few other matters—briefly, I promise.
The first is driver training. I am not happy that the public service vehicle test does all that it can to help drivers cope with motorway conditions. Nor am I satisfied with the frequency and rigour of the medical and other checks carried out during a driver's career. Will the Minister give me some assurances on that in his reply?
I am also concerned that a situation can arise—this refers specifically to the Bowring case — when a local authority is never able to guarantee that its fencing will prevent animals from wandering on to a high-speed road. Should not councils keep records of inspection? When confronted with the fatal gap, through which Miss Bowring's sheep passed, the authority blamed land subsidence at some date in the past for the fact that it was 5 ins wider than it should have been, despite clear evidence of the regular passage of animals through it. Miss Bowring's father is also of the opinion that there must be prosecutions against landowners whose sheep or other animals frequently stray on to motorways, and I certainly agree with that.
Loading of the double-deckers is another factor. Although I have been unable to discover much about the importance or otherwise of coach loading, perhaps the Minister can help me. To have 42 out of the total load of 48 people on the top deck does not seem to be the safest arrangement that can be obtained. Surely a top-heavy bus must be unstable. Instructions on the safest principles of passenger loading should be given to staff and be displayed. Perhaps that would help to reduce overturning or cartwheeling.
Lastly, I accept that double-deckers are here to stay, but is it altogether too optimistic to ask for an end to or a restriction of new production? I ask more in hope than expectation.
This, then, amounts to a programme for reform in coach safety. It is curious that our overloaded roads are constantly packed with coachloads of people whose dearest wish is, reportedly, to be, able to afford the price of a rail ticket, and yet the trains run half empty. I can think of no other country outside the Third world of

America where buses are a serious mode of long distance volume public transport. It seems unfair that the railway should bear its infrastructure costs, but the coaches pay only the £100 road fund, and the Government pay the rest.
We live in hope of an increase in British Rail's PSO grant, but we must accept that coaches are the here and now and they need to be safer. We must also acknowledge that coaches, traditionally the transport of the poor, have often been the Cinderalla of safety regulations and that, with increased business deregulation and competition and commercial developments in the industry, are sometimes in danger of outpacing safety developments.
I strongly believe that good public services are crucial to a civilised way of life, especially in a country as crowded as Britain. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a belief shared by many of the Minister's colleagues. King's Cross showed what can happen when carelessness or hostility is allowed to weaken necessary public services. The Government must learn that there are some areas, although perhaps fewer than we thought in 1979, into which commercialism cannot intrude. I am genuinely worried that they may learn their lesson the hard way, after repeated lapses of safety standards, followed by a series of calamities.
I am sure that the Minister has come across cases like Emma Bowring's. I am sure that he, like me, wants to come across as few of them as possible in future. Accordingly, I appeal to him to think about the measures I have mentioned and to respond generously to them. He must be an old hand at these late-night debates, and I, as one of the newest hands al them, thank him for his consideration and patience, even when he thought I would never finish.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has done the House and country a service by raising a road casualty reduction issue — even at this time of day. I should welcome more debates on the subject.
Between 16 and 18 people have died on the roads in the past 24 hours, 12 of them in built-up areas. Taking 1984, 1985 and 1986 together, 18 people died in long-distance coaches on motorways and on A roads. In 1984, five passengers died in public service vehicles on those roads; in 1985, 12 died; and in 1986, only one. The number of fatalities obviously fluctuates, but it is low. However, any unnecessary deaths should be avoided whenever possible, even deaths that can be described as accidents. I remind the House that the coroner's verdict was that the tragic death of Miss Emma Bowring was acccidental. Any death, whether accidental or due to an obvious cause, is to be regretted. That is why the Secretary of State has set out a target of cutting road casualties in the United Kingdom by a third by the year 2000.
I should welcome much more interest in drink-driving, which is the largest single cause of deaths on our roads, and in motor cycle safety. The motor cycling world thinks that I have a bee in my bonnet about motor bikes, but 700 people die on them each year and 52,000 are injured.
Compared with other forms of road passenger transport, coach travel remains by far the safest. Given the choice between driving myself up the A1(M) to Durham or going by coach, I should be far safer travelling by coach.
The hon. Member for City of Durham raised the issue of compensation. I do not think that he wants me to go into too much detail on that now, but there are no plans to change the existing basis for liability for road accident injuries, which is based on the principles of negligence. The civil justice review, set up in 1985, is examining ways of reducing cost, delays and the complexity of litigation. The review is expected to report to the Lord Chancellor shortly. As the hon. Gentleman said, that will not affect the claim in the case that he mentioned, but it is information that people will want to have.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the standard of training of public service vehicle drivers. We constantly monitor the tests, but there are no plans to revise them at present. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has endorsed the Bus and Coach Council's code on driving standards and restraint on coach speeds.
The Department of Transport's survey, conducted in July and August last year, showed that 9 per cent. of buses and coaches exceeded the 70 mph limit on stretches of roads where it was easy for them to do so. That is a substantial reduction on the 1983 figures, when nearly a third of coaches exceeded the maximum speed limit. Even 9 per cent. exceeding the speed limit is not satisfactory, but it is a remarkable improvement, and it is better than for other vehicles on motorways.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the introduction of speed limiters. They are coming in. The House has had the relevant information. They will physically prevent coaches exceeding 70 mph.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be appropriate to reduce the motorway speed limit for coaches from 70 mph to 60 mph, and whether we should consider banning coaches from the third lane. We have the safest roads in the European Community, because we base our decisions and regulations on monitoring and seeing whether there will be benefit. People may say that I am being too hard-hearted in rigidly sticking to what produces the best benefit. But the reason the death rates on our roads are significantly better than the West Germans', who have 50 per cent. more deaths for the same population, or the French who have twice as many deaths for the same population, is that we do not just work on what the Minister might see as common sense. It is subject mainly to the work of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, to which I pay public tribute.
The problem with restricting coaches, apart from seeing what benefit there would be, is that they would be confined to bunching with heavy goods vehicles, which are heavier than coaches and have thicker skins—if I may put it that way—than coaches, I suspect that we would not end up with significant benefit. I hope that people will realise that the various requirements that we have been putting on coaches, in addition to speed limits that are coming, will also have the effect of increasing the safety of coaches. From 1 October, we shall have seat belts fitted to all exposed forward coach seats. I am looking at the possible extension of the requirements to exposed seats on existing coaches.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be appropriate to have seat belts on all seats. I feel strongly about that issue. The evidence is that passengers in exposed seats are at most risk. I refer to the tragedy of the coaches involved in the crash on the M4 at Heston a few

months back. Passengers in exposed seats suffered the greatest injury and died. Coaches met head-on at speed, because of the inexplicably dangerous behaviour of a lorry driver. Nearly all passengers were either not significantly hurt or survived. That shows the integral strength of coaches when one is not sitting in an exposed seat.
Anti-lock brakes will be required on coaches from 1 April 1990. They will also help drivers to maintain stability on braking suddenly or in adverse conditions. There will be improvements to coach roof strength. Ordinary coaches will become safer in roll-over accidents. A stronger roof built to a new international standard will he required on new coaches from 1 April 1990.
On fire safety, we have recently tightened up the requirements on emergency exits from the top deck of double-deck coaches. The European standard for flammability of upholstery materials, now agreed, will be implemented as soon as possible.
There is no reason to ban double-deckers from motorways. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about whether it is sensible to have 42 out of 48 passengers on the top deck. I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman. The vehicles which are banned from motorways are those considered to be of particular hazard to other traffic such as slow-moving agricultural vehicles. Double deckers do not constitute a particular hazard.
The hon. Member for City of Durham raised some other points to which I shall reply in more detail. I want to emphasise that we want to avoid all unnecessary crashes and collisions. According to our information, at present 75 per cent. of the death and injury on our roads is unnecessary. We are continuing research to find out what more could be avoided.
Last year, 5,382 people died on our roads. Of that number, 248 died on the motorways. Motorways carry 14 per cent. of all traffic and have only 2 per cent. of the injury accidents. None of that is any consolation to any family caught up in the casualty toll, especially to the family of Miss Emma Bowring. However, it is worth recognising that motorways are the safest roads and that coaches are the safest vehicles on those roads.
I share with the hon. Gentleman the intention of making coach travel on and off the motorways as safe as it reasonably can be. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the greatest returns will come by dealing with drink-driving and by dealing with motor cycles so that we can preserve what is good about motor cycling and cut out what is bad about it—although there has been remarkable distortion in the motor cycle press—and if we pay more attention to safety in built-up areas, as 40 per cent. of our vehicle traffic is in built-up areas and 80 per cent. of injuries occur in built-up areas.
We should take a balanced approach that deals with every issue that arises. The hon. Gentleman has raised a particular issue tonight. If we take a broad approach to the other issues that are killing a large number of people, we shall be able to deliver the Secretary of State's target. That is not to make the Secretary of State happy, but to make sure that police officers will knock on the doors of fewer homes to tell people that their son or daughter, their husband or wife or one of their parents will not be coming home.
It is also worth recognising that we must involve young people in road casualty reduction from an early age. I should like to pay a public tribute to class 9 of the Wharton primary school in Salford where I was this


morning where children between the ages of eight and a half and 10 were looking at road casualty reductions, some of which applied to collisions on motorways.
If we can all take our responsibilities seriously, whether it is the people maintaining the fences which led to the sheep coming onto the A1(M) or whether it is people's own

road use behaviour, we shall be serving the people of this country and helping to make the roads as safe as they reasonably can be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Four o'clock.